Message-ID: <CAEXW_YQ+40a1-hk5ZP+QJ54xniSutosC7MjMscJJy8fen-gU9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 21:24:15 -0500
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rcu@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: raise RCU qs after each threaded NAPI poll

(Shrinking CC a bit)

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 1:29 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:41:55PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Feb 29, 2024, at 11:57 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 09:21:48AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > >>> On 2/28/2024 5:58 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:48:44PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 2:31 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:19:11 -0800
> > >>>>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Well, to your initial point, cond_resched() does eventually invoke
> > >>>>>>>> preempt_schedule_common(), so you are quite correct that as far as
> > >>>>>>>> Tasks RCU is concerned, cond_resched() is not a quiescent state.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks for confirming. :-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> However, given that the current Tasks RCU use cases wait for trampolines
> > >>>>>> to be evacuated, Tasks RCU could make the choice that cond_resched()
> > >>>>>> be a quiescent state, for example, by adjusting rcu_all_qs() and
> > >>>>>> .rcu_urgent_qs accordingly.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But this seems less pressing given the chance that cond_resched() might
> > >>>>>> go away in favor of lazy preemption.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Although cond_resched() is technically a "preemption point" and not truly a
> > >>>>> voluntary schedule, I would be happy to state that it's not allowed to be
> > >>>>> called from trampolines, or their callbacks. Now the question is, does BPF
> > >>>>> programs ever call cond_resched()? I don't think they do.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [ Added Alexei ]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm a bit lost in this thread :)
> > >>>> Just answering the above question.
> > >>>> bpf progs never call cond_resched() directly.
> > >>>> But there are sleepable (aka faultable) bpf progs that
> > >>>> can call some helper or kfunc that may call cond_resched()
> > >>>> in some path.
> > >>>> sleepable bpf progs are protected by rcu_tasks_trace.
> > >>>> That's a very different one vs rcu_tasks.
> > >>>
> > >>> Suppose that the various cond_resched() invocations scattered throughout
> > >>> the kernel acted as RCU Tasks quiescent states, so that as soon as a
> > >>> given task executed a cond_resched(), synchronize_rcu_tasks() might
> > >>> return or call_rcu_tasks() might invoke its callback.
> > >>>
> > >>> Would that cause BPF any trouble?
> > >>>
> > >>> My guess is "no", because it looks like BPF is using RCU Tasks (as you
> > >>> say, as opposed to RCU Tasks Trace) only to wait for execution to leave a
> > >>> trampoline.  But I trust you much more than I trust myself on this topic!
> > >>
> > >> But it uses RCU Tasks Trace as well (for sleepable bpf programs), not just
> > >> Tasks? Looks like that's what Alexei said above as well, and I confirmed it in
> > >> bpf/trampoline.c
> > >>
> > >>        /* The trampoline without fexit and fmod_ret progs doesn't call original
> > >>         * function and doesn't use percpu_ref.
> > >>         * Use call_rcu_tasks_trace() to wait for sleepable progs to finish.
> > >>         * Then use call_rcu_tasks() to wait for the rest of trampoline asm
> > >>         * and normal progs.
> > >>         */
> > >>        call_rcu_tasks_trace(&im->rcu, __bpf_tramp_image_put_rcu_tasks);
> > >>
> > >> The code comment says it uses both.
> > >
> > > BPF does quite a few interesting things with these.
> > >
> > > But would you like to look at the update-side uses of RCU Tasks Rude
> > > to see if lazy preemption affects them?  I don't believe that there
> > > are any problems here, but we do need to check.
> >
> > Sure I will be happy to. I am planning look at it in detail over the 3 day weekend. Too much fun! ;-)
>
> Thank you, and looking forward to seeing what you come up with!
>
> The canonical concern would be that someone somewhere is using either
> call_rcu_tasks_rude() or synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() to wait for
> non-preemptible regions of code that does not account for the possibility
> of preemption in CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE or PREEMPT_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY kernels.
>
> I *think* that these are used only to handle the possibility
> of tracepoints on functions on the entry/exit path and on the
> RCU-not-watching portions of the idle loop.  If so, then there is no
> difference in behavior for lazy preemption.  But who knows?

Hi Paul, regarding CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO, for Tasks RCU rude, I think
the following patch will address your concern about quiescent states
on CPUs spinning away in kernel mode:

"sched/fair: handle tick expiry under lazy preemption"
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240213055554.1802415-24-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com/

In this patch Ankur makes sure that the scheduling-clock interrupt
will reschedule the CPU after a tick and not let queued tasks starve
due to lazy re-scheduling. So my impression is the
"schedule_on_each_cpu()" should schedule a worker thread in time to
apply the implied Tasks RCU quiescent state even if the rescheduling
was a LAZY-reschedule.

Also, not sure if the "voluntary mode" of CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO behaves
differently. My feeling is regardless of preemption mode,
CONFIG_PREEMPT_AUTO should always preempt after a tick if something
else needs to run. It just will not preempt immediately like before
(although CFS did already have some wakeup preemption logic to slow it
down a bit). I am reviewing Ankur's patches more to confirm that and
also reviewing his patches more to see how it could affect.

thanks,

 - Joel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists