linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Defer RCU kthreads wakeup when CPU is dying

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: <6b613378-e21a-426a-9989-46c3fb9c45a7@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 16:57:11 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@....com>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>, rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rcu: Defer RCU kthreads wakeup when CPU is dying

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 04:50:41PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 10:01:55PM -0500, Joel Fernandes a écrit :
> > > (Though right now I'm missing the flush_smp_call_function_queue() call that flushes
> > > the ttwu queue between sched_cpu_deactivate() and sched_cpu_wait_empty())
> > 
> > Possible. I saw your IRC message to Peter on that as well, thanks for
> > following up. I need to find some time to look more into that, but that does
> > sound concerning.
> 
> Found it! It's smpcfd_dying_cpu().
> 
> > > But note this patch does something different, it doesn't defer the runqueue
> > > enqueue like ttwu queue does. It defers the whole actual wakeup. This means that the
> > > decision as to where to queue the task is delegated to an online CPU. So it's
> > > not the same constraints. Waking up a task _from_ a CPU that is active or not but
> > > at least online is supposed to be fine.
> > 
> > Agreed, thanks for the clarifications. But along similar lines (and at the
> > risk of oversimplifying), is it not possible to send an IPI to an online CPU
> > to queue the hrtimer locally there if you detect that the current CPU is
> > going down? In the other thread to Hilf, you mentioned the hrtimer infra has
> > to have equal or earlier deadline, but you can just queue the hrtimer from
> > the IPI handler and that should take care of it?
> 
> This is something that Thomas wanted to avoid IIRC, because the IPI can make
> it miss the deadline. But I guess in the case of an offline CPU, it can be a
> last resort.
> 
> > Let me know if I missed something which should make for some good holiday
> > reading material. ;-)
> 
> Let me summarize the possible fixes we can have:
> 
> 1) It's RCU's fault! We must check and fix all the wake ups performed by RCU
>    from rcutree_report_cpu_dead(). But beware other possible wake-ups/timer
>    enqueue from the outgoing CPU after hrtimers are migrated.
> 
> 2) It's scheduler's fault! do_start_rt_bandwidth() should check if the current
>    CPU is offline and place manually the timer to an online CPU (through an
>    IPI? yuck)
> 
> 3) It's hrtimer's fault! If the current CPU is offline, it must arrange for
>    queueing to an online CPU. Not easy to do as we must find one whose next
>    expiry is below/equal the scheduler timer. As a last resort, this could be
>    force queued to any and then signalled through an IPI, even though it's
>    something we've tried to avoid until now.
> 
>    Also It's hard for me to think about another way to fix the deadlock fixed
>    by 5c0930ccaad5a74d74e8b18b648c5eb21ed2fe94. Hrtimers migration can't happen
>    after rcutree_report_cpu_dead(), because it may use RCU...
> 
> None of the above look pretty anyway. Thoughts?

Make one of the surviving CPUs grab any leftover timers from the outgoing
CPU, possibly checking periodically.  Not pretty either, but three ugly
options deserve a fourth one!

							Thanx, Paul