From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: tj@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Question about synchronize_sched_expedited()
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:43:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101025154358.GA6919@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
Hello, Tejun,
I was taking another look at synchronize_sched_expedited(), and was
concerned about the scenario listed out in the following commit.
Is this scenario a real problem, or am I missing the synchronization
that makes it safe?
(If my concerns are valid, I should also be able to change this
to non-atomically increment synchronize_sched_expedited_count, but
one step at a time...)
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit 1c2f788a742b87f8fae692b0b3014732124ee3c6
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon Oct 25 07:39:22 2010 -0700
rcu: fix race condition in synchronize_sched_expedited()
The new (early 2010) implementation of synchronize_sched_expedited() uses
try_stop_cpu() to force a context switch on every CPU. It also permits
concurrent calls to synchronize_sched_expedited() to share a single call
to try_stop_cpu() through use of an atomically incremented
synchronize_sched_expedited_count variable. Unfortunately, this is
subject to failure as follows:
o Task A invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), try_stop_cpus()
succeeds, but Task A is preempted before getting to the atomic
increment of synchronize_sched_expedited_count.
o Task B also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), with exactly
the same outcome as Task A.
o Task C also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), again with
exactly the same outcome as Tasks A and B.
o Task D also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), but only
gets as far as acquiring the mutex within try_stop_cpus()
before being preempted, interrupted, or otherwise delayed.
o Task E also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), but only
gets to the snapshotting of synchronize_sched_expedited_count.
o Tasks A, B, and C all increment synchronize_sched_expedited_count.
o Task E fails to get the mutex, so checks the new value
of synchronize_sched_expedited_count. It finds that the
value has increased, so (wrongly) assumes that its work
has been done, returning despite there having been no
expedited grace period since it began.
The solution is to have the lowest-numbered CPU atomically increment
the synchronize_sched_expedited_count variable within the
synchronize_sched_expedited_cpu_stop() function, which is under
the protection of the mutex acquired by try_stop_cpus().
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
index 32e76d4..16bf339 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
@@ -1041,6 +1041,8 @@ static int synchronize_sched_expedited_cpu_stop(void *data)
* robustness against future implementation changes.
*/
smp_mb(); /* See above comment block. */
+ if (cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask) == smp_processor_id())
+ atomic_inc(&synchronize_sched_expedited_count);
return 0;
}
@@ -1077,7 +1079,6 @@ void synchronize_sched_expedited(void)
}
get_online_cpus();
}
- atomic_inc(&synchronize_sched_expedited_count);
smp_mb__after_atomic_inc(); /* ensure post-GP actions seen after GP. */
put_online_cpus();
}
next reply other threads:[~2010-10-25 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-25 15:43 Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-10-25 16:03 ` Question about synchronize_sched_expedited() Tejun Heo
2010-10-25 19:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-10-26 9:25 ` Tejun Heo
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=20101025154358.GA6919@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@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