From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932316AbeCMAPN (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:15:13 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:53060 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932222AbeCMAPL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:15:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:15:45 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Boqun Feng Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: exp: Fix "must hold exp_mutex" comments for QS reporting functions Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20180307084944.10229-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com> <20180307154829.GE3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180308034627.n2xw32zzujnmy2gb@tardis> <20180308043017.GL3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180308045429.py66d76trikiuguf@tardis> <20180308083006.wsgvkiw2ejbcwhhu@tardis> <20180308154255.GM3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180309065700.qseccsy3z3m72pa7@tardis> <20180309201707.GC3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180312052838.676fknxi4kvucgdd@tardis> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180312052838.676fknxi4kvucgdd@tardis> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 18031300-0040-0000-0000-0000040640C8 X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00008662; HX=3.00000241; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000254; SDB=6.01002186; UDB=6.00509922; IPR=6.00781516; MB=3.00019996; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2018-03-13 00:15:08 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 18031300-0041-0000-0000-000008074A7A Message-Id: <20180313001545.GR3918@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2018-03-12_14:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1803130002 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 01:28:38PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:17:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 02:57:00PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:42:55AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:30:06PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:54:29PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:30:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > > > + * Like sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(), but this function assumes the caller > > > > > > > > + * doesn't hold the rcu_node's ->lock, and will acquire and release the lock > > > > > > > > + * itself > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > > +static bool sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done_unlocked(struct rcu_node *rnp) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + unsigned long flags; > > > > > > > > + bool ret; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags); > > > > > > > > + ret = sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see... The sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done() function checks the > > > > > > > ->exp_tasks pointer and the ->expmask bitmask. The number of bits in the > > > > > > > mask can only decrease, and the ->exp_tasks pointer can only transition > > > > > > > from NULL to non-NULL when there is at least one bit set. However, > > > > > > > there is no ordering in sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(), so it is possible > > > > > > > that it could be fooled without the lock: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o CPU 0 in sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done() reads ->exp_tasks and > > > > > > > sees that it is NULL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o CPU 1 blocks within an RCU read-side critical section, so > > > > > > > it enqueues the task and points ->exp_tasks at it and > > > > > > > clears CPU 1's bit in ->expmask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o All other CPUs clear their bits in ->expmask. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o CPU 0 reads ->expmask, sees that it is zero, so incorrectly > > > > > > > concludes that all quiescent states have completed, despite > > > > > > > the fact that ->exp_tasks is non-NULL. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it seems to me that the lock is needed. Good catch!!! The problem > > > > > > > would occur only if the task running on CPU 0 received a spurious > > > > > > > wakeup, but that could potentially happen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the analysis ;-) > > > > > > > > The other limitation is that it occurs only on systems small enough > > > > to have a single-node rcu_node tree. But still... > > > > > > > > > > > If lock contention becomes a problem, memory-ordering tricks could be > > > > > > > applied, but the lock is of course simpler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am guessing that this is a prototype patch, and that you are planning > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, this is a prototype. And I'm preparing a proper patch to send > > > > > > later. > > > > > > > > Very good, thank you! > > > > > > > > > > > to add lockdep annotations in more places, but either way please let > > > > > > > me know. > > > > > > > > > > > > Give it's a bug as per your analysis, I'd like to defer other lockdep > > > > > > annotations and send this first. However, I'm currently getting other > > > > > > lockdep splats after applying this, so I need to get that sorted first. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm.. the other lockdep splat seems irrelevant with my patch, I could > > > > > observe it on mainline using rcutorture with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y. I'd > > > > > spend some more time on it, in the meanwhile, send a proper patch for > > > > > this sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(). > > > > > > > > I am not seeing that one, but am very interested in getting it fixed! ;-) > > > > > > Found the root cause, and send out the patch ;-) > > > > Very good! Still not sure why I don't see it, but as long as it is fixed! > > > > One thing I could hit this is because I ran rcutorture with > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, maybe you could consider adding that in your > rcutorture testsuite? I also need to test without lockdep, but you are right that I should certainly do a full-up lockdep once in a while! Thanx, Paul