From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Fix up timeouts for forcing the quiescent state
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:02:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150908200242.GY4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150907152102.GC9577@pathway.suse.cz>
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 05:21:02PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2015-09-04 16:49:46, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:11:30PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > The deadline to force the quiescent state (jiffies_force_qs) is currently
> > > updated only when the previous timeout passed. But the timeout used for
> > > wait_event() is always the entire original timeout. This is strange.
> >
> > They tell me that kthreads aren't supposed to every catch signals,
> > hence the WARN_ON() in the early-exit case stray-signal case.
>
> Yup, I have investigated this recently. All signals are really blocked
> for kthreads by default. There are few threads that use signals but
> they explicitly enable it by allow_signal().
Good! ;-)
> > In the case where we were awakened with an explicit force-quiescent-state
> > request, we do the scan, and then wait the full time for the next scan.
> > So the point of the delay is to space out the scans, not to fit a
> > pre-determined schedule.
> >
> > The reason we get awakened with an explicit force-quiescent-state
> > request is that a given CPU just got inundated with RCU callbacks
> > or that rcutorture wants to hammer this code path.
> >
> > So I am not seeing this as anything in need of fixing.
> >
> > Am I missing something subtle here?
>
> There is the commit 88d6df612cc3c99f5 ("rcu: Prevent spurious-wakeup
> DoS attack on rcu_gp_kthread()"). It suggests that the spurious
> wakeups are possible.
>
> I would consider this patch as a fix/clean up of this Dos attack fix.
> Huh, I forgot to mention it in the commit message.
>
> To be honest, I personally do not know how to trigger the spurious
> wakeup in the current state of the code. I am trying to convert
> the kthread into the kthread worker API and there I got the spurious
> wakeups but this is another story.
You can do it via rcutorture, but that is not an in-production concern.
You can also do it by having all CPUs invoke call_rcu() in a tight loop.
> Thanks a lot for reviewing.
And thank you for your interest in the Linux-kernel RCU implementation!
Thanx, Paul
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-08 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-04 12:11 [PATCH 0/2] rcu: two small fixes for RCU kthreads Petr Mladek
2015-09-04 12:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] rcu: Show the real fqs_state Petr Mladek
2015-09-04 23:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-07 14:58 ` Petr Mladek
2015-09-08 19:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-09 12:39 ` Petr Mladek
2015-09-09 19:12 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-04 12:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Fix up timeouts for forcing the quiescent state Petr Mladek
2015-09-04 23:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-09-07 15:21 ` Petr Mladek
2015-09-08 20:02 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
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=20150908200242.GY4029@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox