Re: [PATCH RFC v2 tip/core/rcu 14/22] rcu-tasks: Add an RCU Tasks Trace to simplify protection of tracing hooks

Joel Fernandes
2020-03-19T01:37:21Z

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 05:10:52PM -0700, paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
[...]
> +/* Initialize for a new RCU-tasks-trace grace period. */
> +static void rcu_tasks_trace_pregp_step(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + // Wait for CPU-hotplug paths to complete.
> + cpus_read_lock();
> + cpus_read_unlock();
> +
> + // Allow for fast-acting IPIs.
> + atomic_set(&trc_n_readers_need_end, 1);
> +
> + // There shouldn't be any old IPIs, but...
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(per_cpu(trc_ipi_to_cpu, cpu));
> +}
> +
> +/* Do first-round processing for the specified task. */
> +static void rcu_tasks_trace_pertask(struct task_struct *t,
> + struct list_head *hop)
> +{
> + WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_need_end, false);
> + t->trc_reader_checked = false;
> + t->trc_ipi_to_cpu = -1;
> + trc_wait_for_one_reader(t, hop);
> +}
> +
> +/* Do intermediate processing between task and holdout scans. */
> +static void rcu_tasks_trace_postscan(void)
> +{
> + // Wait for late-stage exiting tasks to finish exiting.
> + // These might have passed the call to exit_tasks_rcu_finish().
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + // Any tasks that exit after this point will set ->trc_reader_checked.
> +}
> +
> +/* Do one scan of the holdout list. */
> +static void check_all_holdout_tasks_trace(struct list_head *hop,
> + bool ndrpt, bool *frptp)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *g, *t;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(t, g, hop, trc_holdout_list) {
> + // If safe and needed, try to check the current task.
> + if (READ_ONCE(t->trc_ipi_to_cpu) == -1 &&
> + !READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_checked))
> + trc_wait_for_one_reader(t, hop);

Just some questions:

1. How are we ensuring on the reader-side that we are executing memory
barriers that are sufficient to ensure that all update-side memory operations
in reader section is visible to code executing after the grace period?

2. Is it possible that a hold-out task is removed from the hold-out list and is
not waited on in the updater side, before the reader side got a chance to
indirectly execute such memory barriers?

3. If a reader sees updates that were done before the grace period started, it
should not see any updates that happen after the grace period ends. Is that
guaranteed with this RCU-Trace?

If its Ok, it would be nice to mention more about memory ordering aspect in
the changelog.

thanks!

- Joel

> +
> + // If check succeeded, remove this task from the list.
> + if (READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_checked))
> + trc_del_holdout(t);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/* Wait for grace period to complete and provide ordering. */
> +static void rcu_tasks_trace_postgp(void)
> +{
> + // Remove the safety count.
> + smp_mb__before_atomic(); // Order vs. earlier atomics
> + atomic_dec(&trc_n_readers_need_end);
> + smp_mb__after_atomic(); // Order vs. later atomics
> +
> + // Wait for readers.
> + wait_event_idle_exclusive(trc_wait,
> + atomic_read(&trc_n_readers_need_end) == 0);
> +
> + smp_mb(); // Caller's code must be ordered after wakeup.
> +}
> +
> +/* Report any needed quiescent state for this exiting task. */
> +void exit_tasks_rcu_finish_trace(struct task_struct *t)
> +{
> + WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_checked, true);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting);
> + WRITE_ONCE(t->trc_reader_nesting, 0);
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(t->trc_reader_need_end)))
> + rcu_read_unlock_trace_special(t);
> +}
> +
> +void call_rcu_tasks_trace(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
> +DEFINE_RCU_TASKS(rcu_tasks_trace, rcu_tasks_wait_gp, call_rcu_tasks_trace,
> + "RCU Tasks Trace");
> +
> +/**
> + * call_rcu_tasks_trace() - Queue a callback trace task-based grace period
> + * @rhp: structure to be used for queueing the RCU updates.
> + * @func: actual callback function to be invoked after the grace period
> + *
> + * The callback function will be invoked some time after a full grace
> + * period elapses, in other words after all currently executing RCU
> + * read-side critical sections have completed. call_rcu_tasks_trace()
> + * assumes that the read-side critical sections end at context switch,
> + * cond_resched_rcu_qs(), or transition to usermode execution. As such,
> + * there are no read-side primitives analogous to rcu_read_lock() and
> + * rcu_read_unlock() because this primitive is intended to determine
> + * that all tasks have passed through a safe state, not so much for
> + * data-strcuture synchronization.
> + *
> + * See the description of call_rcu() for more detailed information on
> + * memory ordering guarantees.
> + */
> +void call_rcu_tasks_trace(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func)
> +{
> + call_rcu_tasks_generic(rhp, func, &rcu_tasks_trace);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(call_rcu_tasks_trace);
> +
> +/**
> + * synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace - wait for a trace rcu-tasks grace period
> + *
> + * Control will return to the caller some time after a trace rcu-tasks
> + * grace period has elapsed, in other words after all currently
> + * executing rcu-tasks read-side critical sections have elapsed. These
> + * read-side critical sections are delimited by calls to schedule(),
> + * cond_resched_tasks_rcu_qs(), userspace execution, and (in theory,
> + * anyway) cond_resched().
> + *
> + * This is a very specialized primitive, intended only for a few uses in
> + * tracing and other situations requiring manipulation of function preambles
> + * and profiling hooks. The synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace() function is not
> + * (yet) intended for heavy use from multiple CPUs.
> + *
> + * See the description of synchronize_rcu() for more detailed information
> + * on memory ordering guarantees.
> + */
> +void synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace(void)
> +{
> + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(lock_is_held(&rcu_trace_lock_map), "Illegal synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace() in RCU Tasks Trace read-side critical section");
> + synchronize_rcu_tasks_generic(&rcu_tasks_trace);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace);
> +
> +/**
> + * rcu_barrier_tasks_trace - Wait for in-flight call_rcu_tasks_trace() callbacks.
> + *
> + * Although the current implementation is guaranteed to wait, it is not
> + * obligated to, for example, if there are no pending callbacks.
> + */
> +void rcu_barrier_tasks_trace(void)
> +{
> + /* There is only one callback queue, so this is easy. ;-) */
> + synchronize_rcu_tasks_trace();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_barrier_tasks_trace);
> +
> +static int __init rcu_spawn_tasks_trace_kthread(void)
> +{
> + rcu_tasks_trace.pregp_func = rcu_tasks_trace_pregp_step;
> + rcu_tasks_trace.pertask_func = rcu_tasks_trace_pertask;
> + rcu_tasks_trace.postscan_func = rcu_tasks_trace_postscan;
> + rcu_tasks_trace.holdouts_func = check_all_holdout_tasks_trace;
> + rcu_tasks_trace.postgp_func = rcu_tasks_trace_postgp;
> + rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread_generic(&rcu_tasks_trace);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +core_initcall(rcu_spawn_tasks_trace_kthread);
> +
> +#else /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU */
> +void exit_tasks_rcu_finish_trace(struct task_struct *t) { }
> +#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU */
> --
> 2.9.5
>