public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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