From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/7] rcu: don't use negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:26:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200217232635.GC17570@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191102124559.1135-5-laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 12:45:56PM +0000, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting was introduced to prevent
> scheduler deadlock. But now with the help of deferred qs
> mechanism, we can defer qs rather than persevere in reporting qs
> and deadlock. So negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting is useless now
> and rcu_read_unlock() can be simplified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
I have queued this for further review and testing, thank you!
There were a few adjustments, so please see the updated patch below.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 756b5aea6df6d769a346d4b55cc66707b2d607a9
Author: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Sat Feb 15 15:23:26 2020 -0800
rcu: Don't use negative nesting depth in __rcu_read_unlock()
Now that RCU flavors have been consolidated, an RCU-preempt
rcu_read_unlock() in an interrupt or softirq handler cannot possibly
end the RCU read-side critical section. Consider the old vulnerability
involving rcu_read_unlock() being invoked within such a handler that
interrupted an __rcu_read_unlock_special(), in which a wakeup might be
invoked with a scheduler lock held. Because rcu_read_unlock_special()
no longer does wakeups in such situations, it is no longer necessary
for __rcu_read_unlock() to set the nesting level negative.
This commit therfore removes this recursion-protection code from
__rcu_read_unlock().
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
[ paulmck: Let rcu_exp_handler() continue to call rcu_report_exp_rdp(). ]
[ paulmck: Adjust other checks given no more negative nesting. ]
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index c2b04da..72952ed 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -639,6 +639,7 @@ static void wait_rcu_exp_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
*/
static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
{
+ int depth = rcu_preempt_depth();
unsigned long flags;
struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
struct rcu_node *rnp = rdp->mynode;
@@ -649,7 +650,7 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
* critical section. If also enabled or idle, immediately
* report the quiescent state, otherwise defer.
*/
- if (!rcu_preempt_depth()) {
+ if (!depth) {
if (!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK)) ||
rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()) {
rcu_report_exp_rdp(rdp);
@@ -673,7 +674,7 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
* can have caused this quiescent state to already have been
* reported, so we really do need to check ->expmask.
*/
- if (rcu_preempt_depth() > 0) {
+ if (depth > 0) {
raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
if (rnp->expmask & rdp->grpmask) {
rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
@@ -683,30 +684,8 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
return;
}
- /*
- * The final and least likely case is where the interrupted
- * code was just about to or just finished exiting the RCU-preempt
- * read-side critical section, and no, we can't tell which.
- * So either way, set ->deferred_qs to flag later code that
- * a quiescent state is required.
- *
- * If the CPU is fully enabled (or if some buggy RCU-preempt
- * read-side critical section is being used from idle), just
- * invoke rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() to immediately report the
- * quiescent state. We cannot use rcu_read_unlock_special()
- * because we are in an interrupt handler, which will cause that
- * function to take an early exit without doing anything.
- *
- * Otherwise, force a context switch after the CPU enables everything.
- */
- rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
- if (!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK)) ||
- WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs())) {
- rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
- } else {
- set_tsk_need_resched(t);
- set_preempt_need_resched();
- }
+ // Finally, negative nesting depth should not happen.
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
}
/* PREEMPTION=y, so no PREEMPTION=n expedited grace period to clean up after. */
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index be3d100..571b7c9 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -345,9 +345,7 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
return READ_ONCE(rnp->gp_tasks) != NULL;
}
-/* Bias and limit values for ->rcu_read_lock_nesting. */
-#define RCU_NEST_BIAS INT_MAX
-#define RCU_NEST_NMAX (-INT_MAX / 2)
+/* limit value for ->rcu_read_lock_nesting. */
#define RCU_NEST_PMAX (INT_MAX / 2)
static void rcu_preempt_read_enter(void)
@@ -355,9 +353,9 @@ static void rcu_preempt_read_enter(void)
current->rcu_read_lock_nesting++;
}
-static void rcu_preempt_read_exit(void)
+static int rcu_preempt_read_exit(void)
{
- current->rcu_read_lock_nesting--;
+ return --current->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
}
static void rcu_preempt_depth_set(int val)
@@ -390,21 +388,15 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
{
struct task_struct *t = current;
- if (rcu_preempt_depth() != 1) {
- rcu_preempt_read_exit();
- } else {
+ if (rcu_preempt_read_exit() == 0) {
barrier(); /* critical section before exit code. */
- rcu_preempt_depth_set(-RCU_NEST_BIAS);
- barrier(); /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
- barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
- rcu_preempt_depth_set(0);
}
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
int rrln = rcu_preempt_depth();
- WARN_ON_ONCE(rrln < 0 && rrln > RCU_NEST_NMAX);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(rrln < 0 || rrln > RCU_NEST_PMAX);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__rcu_read_unlock);
@@ -556,7 +548,7 @@ static bool rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t)
{
return (__this_cpu_read(rcu_data.exp_deferred_qs) ||
READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)) &&
- rcu_preempt_depth() <= 0;
+ rcu_preempt_depth() == 0;
}
/*
@@ -692,7 +684,7 @@ static void rcu_flavor_sched_clock_irq(int user)
} else if (rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t)) {
rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t); /* Report deferred QS. */
return;
- } else if (!rcu_preempt_depth()) {
+ } else if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_preempt_depth())) {
rcu_qs(); /* Report immediate QS. */
return;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-17 23:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-02 12:45 [PATCH V2 0/7] rcu: introduce percpu rcu_preempt_depth Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-02 12:45 ` [PATCH V2 1/7] rcu: use preempt_count to test whether scheduler locks is held Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-15 16:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-19 3:31 ` Joel Fernandes
2020-02-19 3:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 12:45 ` [PATCH V2 2/7] rcu: cleanup rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-03 2:01 ` Boqun Feng
2019-11-03 5:01 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-04 14:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-05 2:09 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-05 7:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-11 14:32 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-12 1:28 ` Lai Jiangshan
2020-02-17 23:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2020-02-18 14:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-02-18 16:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-15 16:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 12:45 ` [PATCH V2 3/7] rcu: remove useless special.b.deferred_qs Lai Jiangshan
2020-02-17 23:23 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 12:45 ` [PATCH V2 4/7] rcu: don't use negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting Lai Jiangshan
2020-02-17 23:26 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2019-11-02 12:45 ` [PATCH V2 5/7] rcu: wrap usages of rcu_read_lock_nesting Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-15 22:25 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 12:45 ` [PATCH V2 6/7] rcu: clear the special.b.need_qs in rcu_note_context_switch() Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-16 15:46 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 12:45 ` [PATCH V2 7/7] x86,rcu: use percpu rcu_preempt_depth Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-02 16:30 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-11-03 4:33 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-04 9:25 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-11-04 11:41 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-04 12:09 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2019-11-16 15:48 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-18 2:02 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-18 14:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-19 1:59 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-19 21:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-20 2:47 ` Lai Jiangshan
2019-11-21 4:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-02 15:05 ` [PATCH V2 0/7] rcu: introduce " Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200217232635.GC17570@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72 \
--to=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.