Message-ID: <ZcQJ2Vec1_b5ooS_@pavilion.home>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:53:13 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	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>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@...il.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Mike Christie <michael.christie@...cle.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu-tasks: Eliminate deadlocks involving do_exit()
 and RCU tasks

Le Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 02:57:27PM -0800, Boqun Feng a écrit :
> From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> 
> Holding a mutex across synchronize_rcu_tasks() and acquiring
> that same mutex in code called from do_exit() after its call to
> exit_tasks_rcu_start() but before its call to exit_tasks_rcu_stop()
> results in deadlock.  This is by design, because tasks that are far
> enough into do_exit() are no longer present on the tasks list, making
> it a bit difficult for RCU Tasks to find them, let alone wait on them
> to do a voluntary context switch.  However, such deadlocks are becoming
> more frequent.  In addition, lockdep currently does not detect such
> deadlocks and they can be difficult to reproduce.
> 
> In addition, if a task voluntarily context switches during that time
> (for example, if it blocks acquiring a mutex), then this task is in an
> RCU Tasks quiescent state.  And with some adjustments, RCU Tasks could
> just as well take advantage of that fact.
> 
> This commit therefore eliminates these deadlock by replacing the
> SRCU-based wait for do_exit() completion with per-CPU lists of tasks
> currently exiting.  A given task will be on one of these per-CPU lists for
> the same period of time that this task would previously have been in the
> previous SRCU read-side critical section.  These lists enable RCU Tasks
> to find the tasks that have already been removed from the tasks list,
> but that must nevertheless be waited upon.
> 
> The RCU Tasks grace period gathers any of these do_exit() tasks that it
> must wait on, and adds them to the list of holdouts.  Per-CPU locking
> and get_task_struct() are used to synchronize addition to and removal
> from these lists.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240118021842.290665-1-chenzhongjin@huawei.com/
> 
> Reported-by: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>

With that, I think we can now revert 28319d6dc5e2 (rcu-tasks: Fix
synchronize_rcu_tasks() VS zap_pid_ns_processes()). Because if the task
is in rcu_tasks_exit_list, it's treated just like the others and must go
through check_holdout_task(). Therefore and unlike with the previous srcu thing,
a task sleeping between exit_tasks_rcu_start() and exit_tasks_rcu_finish() is
now a quiescent state. And that kills the possible deadlock.

> -void exit_tasks_rcu_start(void) __acquires(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu)
> +void exit_tasks_rcu_start(void)
>  {
> -	current->rcu_tasks_idx = __srcu_read_lock(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu);
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct rcu_tasks_percpu *rtpcp;
> +	struct task_struct *t = current;
> +
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!list_empty(&t->rcu_tasks_exit_list));
> +	get_task_struct(t);

Is this get_task_struct() necessary?

> +	preempt_disable();
> +	rtpcp = this_cpu_ptr(rcu_tasks.rtpcpu);
> +	t->rcu_tasks_exit_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rtpcp, flags);

Do we really need smp_mb__after_unlock_lock() ?

> +	if (!rtpcp->rtp_exit_list.next)
> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rtpcp->rtp_exit_list);
> +	list_add(&t->rcu_tasks_exit_list, &rtpcp->rtp_exit_list);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rtpcp, flags);
> +	preempt_enable();
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Contribute to protect against tasklist scan blind spot while the
> - * task is exiting and may be removed from the tasklist. See
> - * corresponding synchronize_srcu() for further details.
> + * Remove the task from the "yet another list" because do_exit() is now
> + * non-preemptible, allowing synchronize_rcu() to wait beyond this point.
>   */
> -void exit_tasks_rcu_stop(void) __releases(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu)
> +void exit_tasks_rcu_stop(void)
>  {
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	struct rcu_tasks_percpu *rtpcp;
>  	struct task_struct *t = current;
>  
> -	__srcu_read_unlock(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu, t->rcu_tasks_idx);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&t->rcu_tasks_exit_list));
> +	rtpcp = per_cpu_ptr(rcu_tasks.rtpcpu, t->rcu_tasks_exit_cpu);
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rtpcp, flags);
> +	list_del_init(&t->rcu_tasks_exit_list);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rtpcp, flags);
> +	put_task_struct(t);

And conversely this put_task_struct()?

Thanks.

>  }
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists