From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB252C43381 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFF0218C3 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726801AbfCTSJ6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:09:58 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:59102 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726695AbfCTSJ5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:09:57 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x2KI8lOD002024 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:09:56 -0400 Received: from e14.ny.us.ibm.com (e14.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.204]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2rbrr75qn7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 14:09:56 -0400 Received: from localhost by e14.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:56 -0000 Received: from b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.29) by e14.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.201) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:53 -0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x2KI9ojp17694924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:50 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC16AB2065; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F14BB205F; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.188]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:09:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0E30A16C2A3C; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:10:41 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: jun.zhang@intel.com, bo.he@intel.com, jie.a.bai@intel.com, jin.xiao@intel.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rcu: Do RCU GP kthread self-wakeup from softirq and interrupt" failed to apply to 5.0-stable tree Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <1553103782152182@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1553103782152182@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19032018-0052-0000-0000-0000039E21D7 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010789; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000281; SDB=6.01177176; UDB=6.00615784; IPR=6.00957871; MB=3.00026076; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-03-20 18:09:55 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19032018-0053-0000-0000-00006037CB2D Message-Id: <20190320181041.GN4102@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-03-20_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1903200133 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 06:43:02PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > > The patch below does not apply to the 5.0-stable tree. > If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm > tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit > id to . Hello, Greg, "This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to earlier kernel versions." ;-) Bo, Jin, Jie, would any of you be interested in doing the backports? I would of course be happy to review them. Thanx, Paul > ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ > > >From 1d1f898df6586c5ea9aeaf349f13089c6fa37903 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "Zhang, Jun" > Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 06:55:01 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Do RCU GP kthread self-wakeup from softirq and interrupt > > The rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function is invoked when it might be necessary > to wake the RCU grace-period kthread. Because self-wakeups are normally > a useless waste of CPU cycles, if rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from > this kthread, it naturally refuses to do the wakeup. > > Unfortunately, natural though it might be, this heuristic fails when > rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from an interrupt or softirq handler > that interrupted the grace-period kthread just after the final check of > the wait-event condition but just before the schedule() call. In this > case, a wakeup is required, even though the call to rcu_gp_kthread_wake() > is within the RCU grace-period kthread's context. Failing to provide > this wakeup can result in grace periods failing to start, which in turn > results in out-of-memory conditions. > > This race window is quite narrow, but it actually did happen during real > testing. It would of course need to be fixed even if it was strictly > theoretical in nature. > > This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to > earlier kernel versions. > > Fixes: 48a7639ce80c ("rcu: Make callers awaken grace-period kthread") > Reported-by: "He, Bo" > Co-developed-by: "Zhang, Jun" > Co-developed-by: "He, Bo" > Co-developed-by: "xiao, jin" > Co-developed-by: Bai, Jie A > Signed-off: "Zhang, Jun" > Signed-off: "He, Bo" > Signed-off: "xiao, jin" > Signed-off: Bai, Jie A > Signed-off-by: "Zhang, Jun" > [ paulmck: Switch from !in_softirq() to "!in_interrupt() && > !in_serving_softirq() to avoid redundant wakeups and to also handle the > interrupt-handler scenario as well as the softirq-handler scenario that > actually occurred in testing. ] > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CD6925E8781EFD4D8E11882D20FC406D52A11F61@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index 9ceb93f848cd..21775eebb8f0 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -1593,15 +1593,23 @@ static bool rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_node *rnp) > } > > /* > - * Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken, and don't > - * bother awakening when there is nothing for the grace-period kthread > - * to do (as in several CPUs raced to awaken, and we lost), and finally > - * don't try to awaken a kthread that has not yet been created. If > - * all those checks are passed, track some debug information and awaken. > + * Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken (unless in > + * an interrupt or softirq handler), and don't bother awakening when there > + * is nothing for the grace-period kthread to do (as in several CPUs raced > + * to awaken, and we lost), and finally don't try to awaken a kthread that > + * has not yet been created. If all those checks are passed, track some > + * debug information and awaken. > + * > + * So why do the self-wakeup when in an interrupt or softirq handler > + * in the grace-period kthread's context? Because the kthread might have > + * been interrupted just as it was going to sleep, and just after the final > + * pre-sleep check of the awaken condition. In this case, a wakeup really > + * is required, and is therefore supplied. > */ > static void rcu_gp_kthread_wake(void) > { > - if (current == rcu_state.gp_kthread || > + if ((current == rcu_state.gp_kthread && > + !in_interrupt() && !in_serving_softirq()) || > !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) || > !rcu_state.gp_kthread) > return; >