public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] rcu/nocb: Invoke rcu_core() at the start of deoffloading
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 13:07:48 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211014110748.GB406368@lothringen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YWcEXj2+nqO8kIFS@boqun-archlinux>

Hi Boqun,

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:07:58AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> If offloading races with rcu_core(), can the following happen?
> 
> 	<offload work>				
> 	rcu_nocb_rdp_offload():
> 	    					rcu_core():
> 						  ...
> 						  rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(); // no a lock
> 	  raw_spin_lock_irqsave(->nocb_lock);
> 	    rdp_offload_toggle():
> 	      <LOCKING | OFFLOADED set>
> 	      					  if (!rcu_segcblist_restempty(...))
> 						    rcu_accelerate_cbs_unlocked(...);
> 						  rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore();
> 						  // ^ a real unlock,
> 						  // and will preempt_enable()
> 	    // offload continue with ->nocb_lock not held
> 
> If this can happen, it means an unpaired preempt_enable() and an
> incorrect unlock. Thoughts? Maybe I'm missing something here?

Since we are unconditionally disabling IRQs on rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(), we can't
be preempted by rcu_nocb_rdp_offload() until rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore() has
completed. And both have to run on the rdp target CPU. So this shouldn't happen.

Thanks.



> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > +	 *
> > +	 * _ Deoffloading: In the worst case we miss callbacks acceleration or
> > +	 *                 processing. This is fine because the early stage
> > +	 *                 of deoffloading invokes rcu_core() after setting
> > +	 *                 SEGCBLIST_RCU_CORE. So we guarantee that we'll process
> > +	 *                 what could have been dismissed without the need to wait
> > +	 *                 for the next rcu_pending() check in the next jiffy.
> > +	 */
> >  	const bool do_batch = !rcu_segcblist_completely_offloaded(&rdp->cblist);
> >  
> >  	if (cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()))
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > index 71a28f50b40f..3b470113ae38 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> > @@ -990,6 +990,15 @@ static long rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload(void *arg)
> >  	 * will refuse to put anything into the bypass.
> >  	 */
> >  	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_nocb_flush_bypass(rdp, NULL, jiffies));
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Start with invoking rcu_core() early. This way if the current thread
> > +	 * happens to preempt an ongoing call to rcu_core() in the middle,
> > +	 * leaving some work dismissed because rcu_core() still thinks the rdp is
> > +	 * completely offloaded, we are guaranteed a nearby future instance of
> > +	 * rcu_core() to catch up.
> > +	 */
> > +	rcu_segcblist_set_flags(cblist, SEGCBLIST_RCU_CORE);
> > +	invoke_rcu_core();
> >  	ret = rdp_offload_toggle(rdp, false, flags);
> >  	swait_event_exclusive(rdp->nocb_state_wq,
> >  			      !rcu_segcblist_test_flags(cblist, SEGCBLIST_KTHREAD_CB |
> > -- 
> > 2.25.1
> > 

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-14 11:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-11 14:51 [PATCH 00/11] rcu: Make rcu_core() safe in PREEMPT_RT with NOCB + a few other fixes v2 Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 01/11] rcu/nocb: Make local rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave() safe against concurrent deoffloading Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 02/11] rcu/nocb: Prepare state machine for a new step Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 03/11] rcu/nocb: Invoke rcu_core() at the start of deoffloading Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-13 16:07   ` Boqun Feng
2021-10-14 11:07     ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2021-10-14 11:42     ` Valentin Schneider
2021-10-14 13:57       ` Boqun Feng
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 04/11] rcu/nocb: Make rcu_core() callbacks acceleration preempt-safe Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 05/11] rcu/nocb: Make rcu_core() callbacks acceleration (de-)offloading safe Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 06/11] rcu/nocb: Check a stable offloaded state to manipulate qlen_last_fqs_check Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 07/11] rcu/nocb: Use appropriate rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave() Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 08/11] rcu/nocb: Limit number of softirq callbacks only on softirq Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 09/11] rcu: Fix callbacks processing time limit retaining cond_resched() Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 10/11] rcu: Apply callbacks processing time limit only on softirq Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-11 14:51 ` [PATCH 11/11] rcu/nocb: Don't invoke local rcu core on callback overload from nocb kthread Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-13  0:32 ` [PATCH 00/11] rcu: Make rcu_core() safe in PREEMPT_RT with NOCB + a few other fixes v2 Paul E. McKenney
2021-10-13  3:28   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-10-13 10:01     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-13 11:43     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-13 16:27       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-10-14 10:43         ` Frederic Weisbecker
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-09-29 22:10 [PATCH 00/11] rcu: Make rcu_core() safe in PREEMPT_RT with NOCB + a few other fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2021-09-29 22:10 ` [PATCH 03/11] rcu/nocb: Invoke rcu_core() at the start of deoffloading Frederic Weisbecker
2021-10-01 17:50   ` Valentin Schneider
2021-10-04 12:41     ` Frederic Weisbecker

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=20211014110748.GB406368@lothringen \
    --to=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=Valentin.Schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.com \
    /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