Message-ID: <CAAq0SUk_-yNgKTyY47+n2oKQ3KF1VYgp2zdScF9fJ5jWP5wKpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:43:09 -0300
From:   Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:PERFORMANCE EVENTS SUBSYSTEM" 
        <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>, Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/task: Add the put_task_struct_atomic_safe() function

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 3:09 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 09:55:28AM -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:
> > Due to the possibility of indirectly acquiring sleeping locks, it is
> > unsafe to call put_task_struct() in atomic contexts when the kernel is
> > compiled with PREEMPT_RT.
> >
> > To mitigate this issue, this commit introduces
> > put_task_struct_atomic_safe(), which schedules __put_task_struct()
> > through call_rcu() when PREEMPT_RT is enabled. While a workqueue would
> > be a more natural approach, we cannot allocate dynamic memory from
> > atomic context in PREEMPT_RT, making the code more complex.
> >
> > This implementation ensures safe execution in atomic contexts and
> > avoids any potential issues that may arise from using the non-atomic
> > version.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>
> > Reported-by: Hu Chunyu <chuhu@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/sched/task.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/fork.c              |  8 ++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched/task.h b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > index b597b97b1f8f..5c13b83d7008 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched/task.h
> > @@ -141,6 +141,37 @@ static inline void put_task_struct_many(struct task_struct *t, int nr)
> >
> >  void put_task_struct_rcu_user(struct task_struct *task);
> >
> > +extern void __delayed_put_task_struct(struct rcu_head *rhp);
> > +
> > +static inline void put_task_struct_atomic_safe(struct task_struct *task)
> > +{
> > +     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT)) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * Decrement the refcount explicitly to avoid unnecessarily
> > +              * calling call_rcu.
> > +              */
> > +             if (refcount_dec_and_test(&task->usage))
> > +                     /*
> > +                      * under PREEMPT_RT, we can't call put_task_struct
> > +                      * in atomic context because it will indirectly
> > +                      * acquire sleeping locks.
> > +                      * call_rcu() will schedule delayed_put_task_struct_rcu()
> > +                      * to be called in process context.
> > +                      *
> > +                      * __put_task_struct() is called called when
> > +                      * refcount_dec_and_test(&t->usage) succeeds.
> > +                      *
> > +                      * This means that it can't "conflict" with
> > +                      * put_task_struct_rcu_user() which abuses ->rcu the same
> > +                      * way; rcu_users has a reference so task->usage can't be
> > +                      * zero after rcu_users 1 -> 0 transition.
> > +                      */
> > +                     call_rcu(&task->rcu, __delayed_put_task_struct);
>
> This will invoke __delayed_put_task_struct() with softirqs disabled.
> Or do softirq-disabled contexts count as non-atomic in PREEMPT_RT?
>

softirqs execute in thread context in PREEMPT_RT. We are good here.

>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>
> > +     } else {
> > +             put_task_struct(task);
> > +     }
> > +}
> > +
> >  /* Free all architecture-specific resources held by a thread. */
> >  void release_thread(struct task_struct *dead_task);
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
> > index 0c92f224c68c..9884794fe4b8 100644
> > --- a/kernel/fork.c
> > +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> > @@ -854,6 +854,14 @@ void __put_task_struct(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__put_task_struct);
> >
> > +void __delayed_put_task_struct(struct rcu_head *rhp)
> > +{
> > +     struct task_struct *task = container_of(rhp, struct task_struct, rcu);
> > +
> > +     __put_task_struct(task);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__delayed_put_task_struct);
> > +
> >  void __init __weak arch_task_cache_init(void) { }
> >
> >  /*
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists