From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] fix rcu_try_flip_waitack_needed() to prevent grace-period stall
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:38:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080321203821.GA16316@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
The comment was correct -- need to make the code match the comment.
Without this patch, if a CPU goes dynticks idle (and stays there forever)
in just the right phase of preemptible-RCU grace-period processing,
grace periods stall. The offending sequence of events (courtesy
of Promela/spin, at least after I got the liveness criterion coded
correctly...) is as follows:
o CPU 0 is in dynticks-idle mode. Its dynticks_progress_counter
is (say) 10.
o CPU 0 takes an interrupt, so rcu_irq_enter() increments CPU 0's
dynticks_progress_counter to 11.
o CPU 1 is doing RCU grace-period processing in rcu_try_flip_idle(),
sees rcu_pending(), so invokes dyntick_save_progress_counter(),
which in turn takes a snapshot of CPU 0's dynticks_progress_counter
into CPU 0's rcu_dyntick_snapshot -- now set to 11. CPU 1 then
updates the RCU grace-period state to rcu_try_flip_waitack().
o CPU 0 returns from its interrupt, so rcu_irq_exit() increments
CPU 0's dynticks_progress_counter to 12.
o CPU 1 later invokes rcu_try_flip_waitack(), which notices that
CPU 0 has not yet responded, and hence in turn invokes
rcu_try_flip_waitack_needed(). This function examines the
state of CPU 0's dynticks_progress_counter and rcu_dyntick_snapshot
variables, which it copies to curr (== 12) and snap (== 11),
respectively.
Because curr!=snap, the first condition fails.
Because curr-snap is only 1 and snap is odd, the second
condition fails.
rcu_try_flip_waitack_needed() therefore incorrectly concludes
that it must wait for CPU 0 to explicitly acknowledge the
counter flip.
o CPU 0 remains forever in dynticks-idle mode, never taking
any more hardware interrupts or any NMIs, and never running
any more tasks. (Of course, -something- will usually eventually
happen, which might be why we haven't seen this one in the
wild. Still should be fixed!)
Therefore the grace period never ends. Fix is to make the code match
the comment, as shown below. With this fix, the above scenario
would be satisfied with curr being even, and allow the grace period
to proceed.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
rcupreempt.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -urpNa -X dontdiff linux-2.6.25-rc6/kernel/rcupreempt.c linux-2.6.25-rc6-rcunohz-if/kernel/rcupreempt.c
--- linux-2.6.25-rc6/kernel/rcupreempt.c 2008-03-16 17:45:17.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.25-rc6-rcunohz-if/kernel/rcupreempt.c 2008-03-18 20:27:47.000000000 -0700
@@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ rcu_try_flip_waitack_needed(int cpu)
* that this CPU already acknowledged the counter.
*/
- if ((curr - snap) > 2 || (snap & 0x1) == 0)
+ if ((curr - snap) > 2 || (curr & 0x1) == 0)
return 0;
/* We need this CPU to explicitly acknowledge the counter flip. */
next reply other threads:[~2008-03-21 20:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-21 20:38 Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2008-03-22 17:43 ` [PATCH] fix rcu_try_flip_waitack_needed() to prevent grace-period stall Peter Zijlstra
2008-03-23 0:55 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-04-26 14:43 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-26 20:52 ` 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=20080321203821.GA16316@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox