[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aBuJi3jhcp4dCbSY@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 18:25:47 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, neeraj.upadhyay@...nel.org, joel@...lfernandes.org,
urezki@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu/nocb: Add Safe checks for access offloaded rdp
Le Wed, May 07, 2025 at 07:26:04PM +0800, Zqiang a écrit :
> For built with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y and CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT=y kernels,
> Disable BH does not change the SOFTIRQ corresponding bits in
> preempt_count(), but change current->softirq_disable_cnt, this
> resulted in the following splat:
>
> WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:36 Unsafe read of RCU_NOCB offloaded state!
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 22 Comm: rcuc/0
> Call Trace:
> [ 0.407907] <TASK>
> [ 0.407910] dump_stack_lvl+0xbb/0xd0
> [ 0.407917] dump_stack+0x14/0x20
> [ 0.407920] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x133/0x210
> [ 0.407932] rcu_rdp_is_offloaded+0x1c3/0x270
> [ 0.407939] rcu_core+0x471/0x900
> [ 0.407942] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0xd5/0x160
> [ 0.407954] rcu_cpu_kthread+0x25f/0x870
> [ 0.407959] ? __pfx_rcu_cpu_kthread+0x10/0x10
> [ 0.407966] smpboot_thread_fn+0x34c/0xa50
> [ 0.407970] ? trace_preempt_on+0x54/0x120
> [ 0.407977] ? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
> [ 0.407982] kthread+0x40e/0x840
> [ 0.407990] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> [ 0.407994] ? rt_spin_unlock+0x4e/0xb0
> [ 0.407997] ? rt_spin_unlock+0x4e/0xb0
> [ 0.408000] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> [ 0.408006] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> [ 0.408011] ret_from_fork+0x40/0x70
> [ 0.408013] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
> [ 0.408018] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
> [ 0.408042] </TASK>
>
> Currently, triggering an rdp offloaded state change need the
> corresponding rdp's CPU goes offline, and at this time the rcuc
> kthreads has already in parking state. this means the corresponding
> rcuc kthreads can safely read offloaded state of rdp while it's
> corresponding cpu is online.
>
> This commit therefore add softirq_count() check for
> Preempt-RT kernels.
>
> Suggested-by: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index 003e549f6514..a91b2322a0cd 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ static bool rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(struct rcu_data *rdp)
> (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) && lockdep_is_cpus_held()) ||
> lockdep_is_held(&rdp->nocb_lock) ||
> lockdep_is_held(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex) ||
> - (!(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT) && preemptible()) &&
> + ((!(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT) && preemptible()) || softirq_count()) &&
> rdp == this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data)) ||
On a second thought, isn't "rdp == this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data)" enough?
The offloaded state can only change if the CPU is completely offline.
But if the current CPU is looking at the local rdp, it means it is online
and the rdp can't be concurrently [de]offloaded, right?
Thanks.
> rcu_current_is_nocb_kthread(rdp)),
> "Unsafe read of RCU_NOCB offloaded state"
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists