Re: [PATCH 08/11] rcu: don't use negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting

Paul E. McKenney
2019-11-18T14:57:52Z

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 09:54:29AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/11/18 5:53 上午, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:04:56PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > On 2019/11/1 8:33 下午, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:08:03AM +0000, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > > > Negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting was introduced to prevent
> > > > > scheduler deadlock which was just prevented by deferred qs.
> > > > > So negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting is useless now and
> > > > > rcu_read_unlock() can be simplified.
> > > > >
> > > > > And negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting is bug-prone,
> > > > > it is good to kill it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 30 ++----------------------------
> > > > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 21 +++++----------------
> > > > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > > index c0d06bce35ea..9dcbd2734620 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > > @@ -621,11 +621,11 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
> > > > > * report the quiescent state, otherwise defer.
> > > > > */
> > > > > if (!t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) {
> > > > > + rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
> > > > > if (!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK)) ||
> > > > > rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()) {
> > > > > - rcu_report_exp_rdp(rdp);
> > > > > + rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > - rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
> > > > > set_tsk_need_resched(t);
> > > > > set_preempt_need_resched();
> > > > > }
> > > > > @@ -646,32 +646,6 @@ static void rcu_exp_handler(void *unused)
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > > -
> > > > > - /*
> > > > > - * The final and least likely case is where the interrupted
> > > > > - * code was just about to or just finished exiting the RCU-preempt
> > > > > - * read-side critical section, and no, we can't tell which.
> > > > > - * So either way, set ->deferred_qs to flag later code that
> > > > > - * a quiescent state is required.
> > > > > - *
> > > > > - * If the CPU is fully enabled (or if some buggy RCU-preempt
> > > > > - * read-side critical section is being used from idle), just
> > > > > - * invoke rcu_preempt_deferred_qs() to immediately report the
> > > > > - * quiescent state. We cannot use rcu_read_unlock_special()
> > > > > - * because we are in an interrupt handler, which will cause that
> > > > > - * function to take an early exit without doing anything.
> > > > > - *
> > > > > - * Otherwise, force a context switch after the CPU enables everything.
> > > > > - */
> > > > > - rdp->exp_deferred_qs = true;
> > > > > - if (rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t) &&
> > > > > - (!(preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK)) ||
> > > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs()))) {
> > > > > - rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
> > > > > - } else {
> > > > > - set_tsk_need_resched(t);
> > > > > - set_preempt_need_resched();
> > > > > - }
> > > > > }
> > > > > /* PREEMPTION=y, so no PREEMPTION=n expedited grace period to clean up after. */
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > index dbded2b8c792..c62631c79463 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > @@ -344,8 +344,6 @@ static int rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > > > > }
> > > > > /* Bias and limit values for ->rcu_read_lock_nesting. */
> > > > > -#define RCU_NEST_BIAS INT_MAX
> > > > > -#define RCU_NEST_NMAX (-INT_MAX / 2)
> > > > > #define RCU_NEST_PMAX (INT_MAX / 2)
> > > > > /*
> > > > > @@ -373,21 +371,15 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > > > - if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting != 1) {
> > > > > - --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > > > > - } else {
> > > > > + if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) {
> > > > > barrier(); /* critical section before exit code. */
> > > > > - t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = -RCU_NEST_BIAS;
> > > > > - barrier(); /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
> > > >
> > > > But if we take an interrupt here, and the interrupt handler contains
> > > > an RCU read-side critical section, don't we end up in the same hole
> > > > that resulted in this article when the corresponding rcu_read_unlock()
> > > > executes? https://lwn.net/Articles/453002/
> > >
> > > Hello, Paul
> > >
> > > I'm replying the email of V1, which is relying on deferred_qs changes
> > > in [PATCH 07/11] (V1).
> > > ([PATCH 04/11](V1) relies on it too as you pointed out)
> > >
> > > I hope I can answer the question wrt https://lwn.net/Articles/453002/
> > > maybe partially.
> > >
> > > With the help of deferred_qs mechanism and the special.b.deferred_qs
> > > bit, I HOPED rcu_read_unlock_special() can find if itself is
> > > risking in scheduler locks via special.b.deferred_qs bit.
> > >
> > > --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > > //outmost rcu c.s, rcu_read_lock_nesting is 0. but special is not zero
> > > INTERRUPT
> > > // the fallowing code will normally be in_interrupt()
> > > // or NOT in_interrupt() when wakeup_softirqd() in invoke_softirq()
> > > // or NOT in_interrupt() when preempt_shedule_irq()
> > > // or other cases I missed.
> > > scheduler_lock()
> > > rcu_read_lock()
> > > rcu_read_unlock()
> > > // special has been set but with no special.b.deferred_qs
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special()
> > > raise_softirq_irqoff()
> > > wake_up() when !in_interrupt() // dead lock
> > >
> > > preempt_shedule_irq() is guaranteed to clear rcu_read_unlock_special
> > > when rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0 before calling into scheduler locks.
> > >
> > > But, at least, what caused my hope to be failed was the case
> > > wakeup_softirqd() in invoke_softirq() (which was once protected by
> > > softirq in about 2 years between ec433f0c5152 and facd8b80c67a).
> > > I don't think it is hard to fix it if we keep using
> > > special.b.deferred_qs as this V1 series.
> >
> > It is quite possible that special.b.deferred_qs might be useful
> > for debugging. But it should now be possible to take care of the
> > nohz_full issue for expedited grace periods, which might in turn allow
> > rcu_read_unlock_special() to avoid acquiring scheduler locks.
> >
> > This could avoid the need for negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting,
> > in turn allowing your simplified _rcu_read_unlock().
> >
> > Would you like to do the expedited grace-period modifications, or
> > would you rather that I do so?
>
> Hello, Paul
>
> To be honest, I didn't known there was special issue about
> nohz_full with expedited grace periods until several days before
> you told me. I just thought that it is requested to be expedited
> so that we need to wake up something to handle it ASAP.
>
> IOW, I'm not in a position to do the expedited grace-period
> modifications before I learnt enough about it. I would be very
> obliged that you do so. I believe it will be a better solution
> than this one or the one in V2 relying on preempt_count.

OK, let me see what I can come up with. No guarantees for this week, but
it will have priority next week. I would of course very much appreciate
your careful review of the resulting commit(s).

Thanx, Paul