From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Uladzislau Rezki <uladzislau.rezki@sony.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] rcu: Fix expedited GP polling against UP/no-preempt environment
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 14:37:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220314133738.269522-2-frederic@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220314133738.269522-1-frederic@kernel.org>
synchronize_rcu_expedited() has an early return condition: if the
current CPU is the only one online and the kernel doesn't run in
preemption mode, the current assumed quiescent state is worth a grace
period.
However the expedited grace period polling caller of
synchronize_rcu_expedited() takes a GP sequence snapshot and expects it
to complete by the end of the synchronize_rcu_expedited() call. Yet if
synchronize_rcu_expedited() relies on the above described UP/no-preempt
early return, the grace period sequence won't move and may cause
an expedited grace period polling stall.
Fix this with treating polling differently while calling
synchronize_rcu_expedited() and ignore the UP-no-preempt optimization
in this case.
Reported-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <uladzislau.rezki@sony.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index d5f30085b0cf..3d8216ced93e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -794,27 +794,14 @@ static int rcu_print_task_exp_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp)
#endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
-/**
- * synchronize_rcu_expedited - Brute-force RCU grace period
- *
- * Wait for an RCU grace period, but expedite it. The basic idea is to
- * IPI all non-idle non-nohz online CPUs. The IPI handler checks whether
- * the CPU is in an RCU critical section, and if so, it sets a flag that
- * causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock() to report the quiescent state
- * for RCU-preempt or asks the scheduler for help for RCU-sched. On the
- * other hand, if the CPU is not in an RCU read-side critical section,
- * the IPI handler reports the quiescent state immediately.
- *
- * Although this is a great improvement over previous expedited
- * implementations, it is still unfriendly to real-time workloads, so is
- * thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code. In fact, if
- * you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop, please restructure
- * your code to batch your updates, and then use a single synchronize_rcu()
- * instead.
- *
- * This has the same semantics as (but is more brutal than) synchronize_rcu().
+/*
+ * Start and wait for an expedited grace period completion.
+ * If it happens to be called by polling functions (@polling = true),
+ * there is no possible early return in UP no-preempt mode because
+ * the callers are waiting for an actual given sequence snapshot to start
+ * and end.
*/
-void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
+static void __synchronize_rcu_expedited(bool polling)
{
bool boottime = (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INIT);
struct rcu_exp_work rew;
@@ -827,7 +814,7 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
"Illegal synchronize_rcu_expedited() in RCU read-side critical section");
/* Is the state is such that the call is a grace period? */
- if (rcu_blocking_is_gp())
+ if (rcu_blocking_is_gp() && !polling)
return;
/* If expedited grace periods are prohibited, fall back to normal. */
@@ -863,6 +850,32 @@ void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
if (likely(!boottime))
destroy_work_on_stack(&rew.rew_work);
+
+}
+
+/**
+ * synchronize_rcu_expedited - Brute-force RCU grace period
+ *
+ * Wait for an RCU grace period, but expedite it. The basic idea is to
+ * IPI all non-idle non-nohz online CPUs. The IPI handler checks whether
+ * the CPU is in an RCU critical section, and if so, it sets a flag that
+ * causes the outermost rcu_read_unlock() to report the quiescent state
+ * for RCU-preempt or asks the scheduler for help for RCU-sched. On the
+ * other hand, if the CPU is not in an RCU read-side critical section,
+ * the IPI handler reports the quiescent state immediately.
+ *
+ * Although this is a great improvement over previous expedited
+ * implementations, it is still unfriendly to real-time workloads, so is
+ * thus not recommended for any sort of common-case code. In fact, if
+ * you are using synchronize_rcu_expedited() in a loop, please restructure
+ * your code to batch your updates, and then use a single synchronize_rcu()
+ * instead.
+ *
+ * This has the same semantics as (but is more brutal than) synchronize_rcu().
+ */
+void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
+{
+ __synchronize_rcu_expedited(false);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(synchronize_rcu_expedited);
@@ -903,7 +916,7 @@ static void sync_rcu_do_polled_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
if (s & 0x1)
return;
while (!sync_exp_work_done(s))
- synchronize_rcu_expedited();
+ __synchronize_rcu_expedited(true);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->exp_poll_lock, flags);
s = rnp->exp_seq_poll_rq;
if (!(s & 0x1) && !sync_exp_work_done(s))
--
2.25.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-14 13:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-14 13:37 [PATCH 0/3] rcu: synchronize_rcu[_expedited]() related fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2022-03-14 13:37 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2022-03-14 13:37 ` [PATCH 2/3] preempt/dynamic: Introduce preempt mode accessors Frederic Weisbecker
2022-03-14 14:44 ` Marco Elver
2022-03-14 20:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-03-14 20:34 ` Marco Elver
2022-03-14 21:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-03-14 22:50 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-03-15 10:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-03-15 15:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-03-14 13:37 ` [PATCH 3/3] rcu: Fix preemption mode check on synchronize_rcu[_expedited]() Frederic Weisbecker
2022-03-14 20:26 ` [PATCH 0/3] rcu: synchronize_rcu[_expedited]() related fixes Paul E. McKenney
2022-03-14 22:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2022-03-15 15:52 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2022-03-15 16:53 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=20220314133738.269522-2-frederic@kernel.org \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.com \
--cc=uladzislau.rezki@sony.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.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