| 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: <b0772bf3-5b47-4aea-b964-17a2bebc6313@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 14:24:26 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RCU] rcu_tasks_trace_qs(): trc_reader_special.b.need_qs value
incorrect likely()?
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 03:49:32PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I just started running my branch tracer (that checks all branches and also
> gives likely and unlikely correctness). And I found this:
>
> correct incorrect % Function File Line
> ------- --------- - -------- ---- ----
> 0 1217713 100 rcu_softirq_qs tree.c 247
>
> Which comes down to this:
>
>
> # define rcu_tasks_trace_qs(t) \
> do { \
> int ___rttq_nesting = READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_nesting); \
> \
> if (likely(!READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs)) && \
> likely(!___rttq_nesting)) { \
> rcu_trc_cmpxchg_need_qs((t), 0, TRC_NEED_QS_CHECKED); \
> } else if (___rttq_nesting && ___rttq_nesting != INT_MIN && \
> !READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.blocked)) { \
> rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd(t); \
> } \
> } while (0)
>
>
> I added just before the likely/unlikely to my test box and I see this:
>
> trace_printk("need qs? %d %d\n", READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs), ___rttq_nesting); \
>
> <idle>-0 [005] d.h1. 2.482412: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [002] d.h1. 2.482464: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [000] d.h1. 2.482766: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [001] d.h1. 2.482951: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [007] d.h1. 2.482958: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [005] d.h1. 2.483600: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [002] d.h1. 2.483624: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [000] d.h1. 2.483927: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [007] d.h1. 2.484068: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [001] d.h1. 2.484127: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [002] d.h1. 2.484723: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [005] d.h1. 2.484745: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [000] d.h1. 2.485015: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [007] d.h1. 2.485202: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [001] d.h1. 2.485258: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [002] d.h1. 2.485818: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [005] d.h1. 2.485929: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [000] d.h1. 2.486224: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [007] d.h1. 2.486370: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [001] d.h1. 2.486399: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [002] d.h1. 2.486895: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [005] d.h1. 2.487049: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [000] d.h1. 2.487318: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [007] d.h1. 2.487472: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [001] d.h1. 2.487522: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [002] d.h1. 2.488034: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
> <idle>-0 [005] d.h1. 2.488220: rcu_sched_clock_irq: need qs? 2 0
>
>
> Note, that "2" is the READ_ONCE() without the "!" to it. Thus:
>
> if (likely(!READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs)) && \
>
> Is unlikely to be true.
>
> Was this supposed to be:
>
> if (!likely(READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs)) && \
>
> Or could it be converted to:
>
> if (unlikely(!READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs)) && \
>
> ?
>
> Note, the unlikely tracing is running on my production server v6.6.3.
>
> The above trace is from my test box with latest Linus's tree.
Nice tool!!!
My kneejerk reaction is that that condition is suboptimal. Does the
(untested) patch below help things?
Thanx, Paul
diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index aa87c82236dd..1df1dc9e8620 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -184,9 +184,9 @@ void rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd(struct task_struct *t);
do { \
int ___rttq_nesting = READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_nesting); \
\
- if (likely(!READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs)) && \
+ if (unlikely(READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.need_qs) == TRC_NEED_QS) && \
likely(!___rttq_nesting)) { \
- rcu_trc_cmpxchg_need_qs((t), 0, TRC_NEED_QS_CHECKED); \
+ rcu_trc_cmpxchg_need_qs((t), TRC_NEED_QS, TRC_NEED_QS_CHECKED); \
} else if (___rttq_nesting && ___rttq_nesting != INT_MIN && \
!READ_ONCE((t)->trc_reader_special.b.blocked)) { \
rcu_tasks_trace_qs_blkd(t); \
Powered by blists - more mailing lists