linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] rcu: limit PREEMPT

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: <87zfllfddj.fsf@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:35:04 -0800
From: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, paulmck@...nel.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        vschneid@...hat.com, efault@....de, sshegde@...ux.ibm.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] rcu: limit PREEMPT_RCU configurations


Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> writes:

> Le Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 01:40:39PM -0800, Ankur Arora a écrit :
>>
>> Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>> > Le Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 12:17:55PM -0800, Ankur Arora a écrit :
>> >> PREEMPT_LAZY can be enabled stand-alone or alongside PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
>> >> which allows for dynamic switching of preemption models.
>> >>
>> >> The choice of PREEMPT_RCU or not, however, is fixed at compile time.
>> >>
>> >> Given that PREEMPT_RCU makes some trade-offs to optimize for latency
>> >> as opposed to throughput, configurations with limited preemption
>> >> might prefer the stronger forward-progress guarantees of PREEMPT_RCU=n.
>> >>
>> >> Accordingly, explicitly limit PREEMPT_RCU=y to the latency oriented
>> >> preemption models: PREEMPT, PREEMPT_RT, and the runtime configurable
>> >> model PREEMPT_DYNAMIC.
>> >>
>> >> This means the throughput oriented models, PREEMPT_NONE,
>> >> PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY and PREEMPT_LAZY will run with PREEMPT_RCU=n.
>> >>
>> >> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
>> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>  kernel/rcu/Kconfig | 2 +-
>> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
>> >> index 5a7ff5e1cdcb..9d52f87fac27 100644
>> >> --- a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
>> >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig
>> >> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ config TREE_RCU
>> >>
>> >>  config PREEMPT_RCU
>> >>  	bool
>> >> -	default y if PREEMPTION
>> >> +	default y if (PREEMPT || PREEMPT_RT || PREEMPT_DYNAMIC)
>> >>  	select TREE_RCU
>> >>  	help
>> >>  	  This option selects the RCU implementation that is
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
>> >
>> > But looking at !CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU code on tree_plugin.h, I see
>> > some issues now that the code can be preemptible. Well I think
>> > it has always been preemptible but PREEMPTION && !PREEMPT_RCU
>> > has seldom been exerciced (or was it even possible?).
>> >
>> > For example rcu_read_unlock_strict() can be called with preemption
>> > enabled so we need the following otherwise the rdp is unstable, the
>> > norm value becomes racy (though automagically fixed in rcu_report_qs_rdp())
>> > and rcu_report_qs_rdp() might warn.
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
>> > index 58d84c59f3dd..368f00267d4e 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
>> > @@ -95,9 +95,9 @@ static inline void __rcu_read_lock(void)
>> >
>> >  static inline void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
>> >  {
>> > -	preempt_enable();
>> >  	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD))
>> >  		rcu_read_unlock_strict();
>> > +	preempt_enable();
>> >  }
>> >
>> >  static inline int rcu_preempt_depth(void)
>>
>> Based on the discussion on the thread, how about keeping this and
>> changing the preempt_count check in rcu_read_unlock_strict() instead?
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
>> index 1c7cbd145d5e..8fc67639d3a7 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
>> @@ -831,8 +831,15 @@ dump_blkd_tasks(struct rcu_node *rnp, int ncheck)
>>  void rcu_read_unlock_strict(void)
>>  {
>>         struct rcu_data *rdp;
>> +       int pc = ((preempt_count() & PREEMPT_MASK) >> PREEMPT_SHIFT);
>
> This should be in_atomic_preempt_off(), otherwise softirqs and IRQs are
> spuriously accounted as quiescent states.

Not sure I got that. Won't ((preempt_count() & PREEMPT_MASK) >> PREEMPT_SHIFT)
give us task only preempt count?

And, given that the preempt_count is at least 1, the (pc > 1) check below
would ensure we have a stable rdp and call rcu_report_qs_rdp() before
dropping the last preempt-count.

>>
>> -       if (irqs_disabled() || preempt_count() || !rcu_state.gp_kthread)
>> +       /*
>> +        * rcu_report_qs_rdp() can only be invoked with a stable rdp and
>> +        * and from the local CPU.
>> +        * With CONFIG_PREEMPTION=y, do this while holding the last
>> +        * preempt_count which gets dropped after __rcu_read_unlock().
>> +        */
>> +       if (irqs_disabled() || pc > 1 || !rcu_state.gp_kthread)
>>                 return;
>>         rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
>>         rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.norm = false;

Thanks

--
ankur