Re: RCU callbacks and TREE_PREEMPT_RCU

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 02:12:01PM +0200, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> hi,
> 
> On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 15:21 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:29:02AM +0200, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 16:26 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:19:46AM +0200, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 08:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 08:47:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 04:34:15PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 08:29 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:17:21PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > When TREE_PREEMPT_RCU is enabled, the rcu list traversing above fails
> > > > > > > > > > with access to 0x6b6b6b6b but it is fine with TREE_PREEMPT_RCU=n and
> > > > > > > > > > TREE_RCU=y. During clean-up, kmemleak objects should no longer be freed
> > > > > > > > > > by other means since kmemleak was disabled and all callbacks are
> > > > > > > > > > ignored. The system is a 900Mhz P3, 256MB RAM, CONFIG_SMP=n.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Is there something I'm doing wrong in kmemleak or a bug with RCU
> > > > > > > > > > preemption? The kernel oops looks like this:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > From your description and the code above, I must suspect a bug with
> > > > > > > > > RCU preemption.  A new one, as the only bugs I am currently chasing
> > > > > > > > > involve NR_CPUS>32 (>64 on 64-bit systems).
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > CONFIG_SMP=n implies NR_CPUS==1 in your build, correct?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=1.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I was afraid of that.  ;-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > PS to previous -- there -is- a bug in mainline for TREE_PREEMPT_RCU for
> > > > > > single-CPU operation, but it is with synchronize_rcu() rather than
> > > > > > call_rcu().  The fix is in tip/core/urgent, commit #366b04ca.  Or see
> > > > > > the following patch.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, could you please give the following patch a try?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sadly this does not fix the issue, is there any further information I
> > > > > can provide to you?
> > > > 
> > > > :-(
> > > > 
> > > > Would you be willing to give the attached diagnostic patch a go?
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > It does not apply cleanly against current -git
> > > (rcu_preempt_check_blocked_tasks is missing in my rcutree_plugin.h for
> > > example) I tried to apply it by hand as good as possible, and will test
> > > it today.
> > > 
> > > root@whiterabbit:/usr/src/linux# patch -p1 < ~/RCU_callbacks_and_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU-debug
> > > patching file kernel/rcutree.c
> > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 623.
> > > Hunk #2 FAILED at 657.
> > > Hunk #3 succeeded at 722 (offset 19 lines).
> > > Hunk #4 succeeded at 740 (offset 19 lines).
> > > Hunk #5 succeeded at 765 (offset 19 lines).
> > > Hunk #6 succeeded at 877 (offset 19 lines).
> > > Hunk #7 succeeded at 886 (offset 19 lines).
> > > 2 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file kernel/rcutree.c.rej
> > > patching file kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > > Hunk #1 FAILED at 206.
> > > Hunk #2 succeeded at 206 (offset -10 lines).
> > > Hunk #3 FAILED at 270.
> > > Hunk #4 succeeded at 283 (offset -22 lines).
> > > Hunk #5 succeeded at 296 (offset -22 lines).
> > > Hunk #6 succeeded at 473 (offset -23 lines).
> > > 2 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> > > kernel/rcutree_plugin.h.rej
> > 
> > Sigh!!!  I lost track of what was in mainline vs. -tip.  You certainly
> > need the following patch from -tip as well.
> > 
> > Please accept apologies for my confusion!!!
> 
> no problem, it still did not apply cleanly, but i was able to get a
> working kernel and cant reproduce the issue with all 3 patches applied.

Very good!!!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks, Eric
> 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Commit-ID:  de078d875cc7fc709f7818f26d38389c04369826
> > Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/de078d875cc7fc709f7818f26d38389c04369826
> > Author:     Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > AuthorDate: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:54:36 -0700
> > Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > CommitDate: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:04:54 +0200
> > 
> > rcu: Need to update rnp->gpnum if preemptable RCU is to be reliable
> > 
> > Without this patch, tasks preempted in RCU read-side critical
> > sections can fail to block the grace period, given that
> > rnp->gpnum is used to determine which rnp->blocked_tasks[]
> > element the preempted task is enqueued on.
> > 
> > Before the patch, rnp->gpnum is always zero, so preempted tasks
> > are always enqueued on rnp->blocked_tasks[0], which is correct
> > only when the current CPU has not checked into the current
> > grace period and the grace-period number is even, or,
> > similarly, if the current CPU -has- checked into the current
> > grace period and the grace-period number is odd.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > Cc: laijs@cn.fujitsu.com
> > Cc: dipankar@in.ibm.com
> > Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org
> > Cc: mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca
> > Cc: josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > Cc: dvhltc@us.ibm.com
> > Cc: niv@us.ibm.com
> > Cc: peterz@infradead.org
> > LKML-Reference: <12524504771622-git-send-email->
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> >  kernel/rcutree.c |    6 +++++-
> >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree.c b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > index 6b11b07..c634a92 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcutree.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcutree.c
> > @@ -632,6 +632,7 @@ rcu_start_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags)
> >  	/* Special-case the common single-level case. */
> >  	if (NUM_RCU_NODES == 1) {
> >  		rnp->qsmask = rnp->qsmaskinit;
> > +		rnp->gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> >  		rsp->signaled = RCU_SIGNAL_INIT; /* force_quiescent_state OK. */
> >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
> >  		return;
> > @@ -657,8 +658,10 @@ rcu_start_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags)
> >  	 */
> > 
> >  	rnp_end = rsp->level[NUM_RCU_LVLS - 1];
> > -	for (rnp_cur = &rsp->node[0]; rnp_cur < rnp_end; rnp_cur++)
> > +	for (rnp_cur = &rsp->node[0]; rnp_cur < rnp_end; rnp_cur++) {
> >  		rnp_cur->qsmask = rnp_cur->qsmaskinit;
> > +		rnp->gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> > +	}
> > 
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Now set up the leaf nodes.  Here we must be careful.  First,
> > @@ -679,6 +682,7 @@ rcu_start_gp(struct rcu_state *rsp, unsigned long flags)
> >  	for (; rnp_cur < rnp_end; rnp_cur++) {
> >  		spin_lock(&rnp_cur->lock);	/* irqs already disabled. */
> >  		rnp_cur->qsmask = rnp_cur->qsmaskinit;
> > +		rnp->gpnum = rsp->gpnum;
> >  		spin_unlock(&rnp_cur->lock);	/* irqs already disabled. */
> >  	}
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > 
>