linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 48/86] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87lear4wj6.fsf@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 19:26:05 -0800
From:   Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To:     paulmck@...nel.org
Cc:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, willy@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
        jon.grimm@....com, bharata@....com, raghavendra.kt@....com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        jgross@...e.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        bristot@...nel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        geert@...ux-m68k.org, glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de,
        anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com, mattst88@...il.com,
        krypton@...ich-teichert.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, richard@....at, mjguzik@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 48/86] rcu: handle quiescent states for PREEMPT_RCU=n


Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 01:57:34PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
>> cond_resched() is used to provide urgent quiescent states for
>> read-side critical sections on PREEMPT_RCU=n configurations.
>> This was necessary because lacking preempt_count, there was no
>> way for the tick handler to know if we were executing in RCU
>> read-side critical section or not.
>>
>> An always-on CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT, however, allows the tick to
>> reliably report quiescent states.
>>
>> Accordingly, evaluate preempt_count() based quiescence in
>> rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq().
>>
>> Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h |  3 ++-
>>  kernel/sched/core.c      | 15 +--------------
>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
>> index f87191e008ff..618f055f8028 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
>> @@ -963,7 +963,8 @@ static void rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>   */
>>  static void rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq(int user)
>>  {
>> -	if (user || rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle()) {
>> +	if (user || rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() ||
>> +	    !(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK))) {
>
> This looks good.
>
>>  		/*
>>  		 * Get here if this CPU took its interrupt from user
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index bf5df2b866df..15db5fb7acc7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -8588,20 +8588,7 @@ int __sched _cond_resched(void)
>>  		preempt_schedule_common();
>>  		return 1;
>>  	}
>> -	/*
>> -	 * In preemptible kernels, ->rcu_read_lock_nesting tells the tick
>> -	 * whether the current CPU is in an RCU read-side critical section,
>> -	 * so the tick can report quiescent states even for CPUs looping
>> -	 * in kernel context.  In contrast, in non-preemptible kernels,
>> -	 * RCU readers leave no in-memory hints, which means that CPU-bound
>> -	 * processes executing in kernel context might never report an
>> -	 * RCU quiescent state.  Therefore, the following code causes
>> -	 * cond_resched() to report a quiescent state, but only when RCU
>> -	 * is in urgent need of one.
>> -	 *      /
>> -#ifndef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
>> -	rcu_all_qs();
>> -#endif
>
> But...
>
> Suppose we have a long-running loop in the kernel that regularly
> enables preemption, but only momentarily.  Then the added
> rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq() check would almost always fail, making
> for extremely long grace periods.

So, my thinking was that if RCU wants to end a grace period, it would
force a context switch by setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED (and as patch 38 mentions
RCU always uses the the eager version) causing __schedule() to call
rcu_note_context_switch().
That's similar to the preempt_schedule_common() case in the
_cond_resched() above.

But if I see your point, RCU might just want to register a quiescent
state and for this long-running loop rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq() does
seem to fall down.

> Or did I miss a change that causes preempt_enable() to help RCU out?

Something like this?

diff --git a/include/linux/preempt.h b/include/linux/preempt.h
index dc5125b9c36b..e50f358f1548 100644
--- a/include/linux/preempt.h
+++ b/include/linux/preempt.h
@@ -222,6 +222,8 @@ do { \
        barrier(); \
        if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) \
                __preempt_schedule(); \
+       if (!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK))) \
+               rcu_all_qs(); \
 } while (0)

Though I do wonder about the likelihood of hitting the case you describe
and maybe instead of adding the check on every preempt_enable()
it might be better to instead force a context switch in the
rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq() (as we do in the PREEMPT_RCU=y case.)

Thanks

--
ankur