| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALm+0cX2muokt4CCMwyGc2o-LGBOReJ+erBM031XuUOw8Z-Fvg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 14:13:53 +0800
From: Z qiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.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
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:17:57PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 07:26:05PM -0800, Ankur Arora wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 that requires IPIing that CPU, correct?
> >
> > > 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)
> >
> > Or maybe something like this to lighten the load a bit:
> >
> > #define preempt_enable() \
> > do { \
> > barrier(); \
> > if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) { \
> > __preempt_schedule(); \
> > if (raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs) && \
> > !(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK))) \
> > rcu_all_qs(); \
> > } \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > And at that point, we should be able to drop the PREEMPT_MASK, not
> > that it makes any difference that I am aware of:
> >
> > #define preempt_enable() \
> > do { \
> > barrier(); \
> > if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) { \
> > __preempt_schedule(); \
> > if (raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs) && \
> > !(preempt_count() & SOFTIRQ_MASK)) \
> > rcu_all_qs(); \
> > } \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > Except that we can migrate as soon as that preempt_count_dec_and_test()
> > returns. And that rcu_all_qs() disables and re-enables preemption,
> > which will result in undesired recursion. Sigh.
> >
> > So maybe something like this:
> >
> > #define preempt_enable() \
> > do { \
> > if (raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs) && \
> > !(preempt_count() & SOFTIRQ_MASK)) \
>
> Sigh. This needs to include (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK),
> but check for equality to something like (1UL << PREEMPT_SHIFT).
>
For PREEMPT_RCU=n and CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y kernels
for report QS in preempt_enable(), we can refer to this:
void rcu_read_unlock_strict(void)
{
struct rcu_data *rdp;
if (irqs_disabled() || preempt_count() || !rcu_state.gp_kthread)
return;
rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm = false;
rcu_report_qs_rdp(rdp);
udelay(rcu_unlock_delay);
}
The rcu critical section may be in the NMI handler needs to be considered.
Thanks
Zqiang
>
> Clearly time to sleep. :-/
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > rcu_all_qs(); \
> > barrier(); \
> > if (unlikely(preempt_count_dec_and_test())) { \
> > __preempt_schedule(); \
> > } \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > Then rcu_all_qs() becomes something like this:
> >
> > void rcu_all_qs(void)
> > {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > /* Load rcu_urgent_qs before other flags. */
> > if (!smp_load_acquire(this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs)))
> > return;
> > this_cpu_write(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs, false);
> > if (unlikely(raw_cpu_read(rcu_data.rcu_need_heavy_qs))) {
> > local_irq_save(flags);
> > rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle();
> > local_irq_restore(flags);
> > }
> > rcu_qs();
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_all_qs);
> >
> > > 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.)
> >
> > Maybe. But rcu_all_qs() is way lighter weight than a context switch.
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists