public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
	Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 03/11] rcu/nocb: Assert no callbacks while nocb kthread allocation fails
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 15:45:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240530134552.5467-4-frederic@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240530134552.5467-1-frederic@kernel.org>

When a NOCB CPU fails to create a nocb kthread on bringup, the CPU is
then deoffloaded. The barrier mutex is locked at this stage. It is
typically used to protect against concurrent (de-)offloading and/or
concurrent rcu_barrier() that would otherwise risk a nocb locking
imbalance. However:

* rcu_barrier() can't run concurrently if it's the boot CPU on early
  boot-up.

* rcu_barrier() can run concurrently if it's a secondary CPU but it is
  expected to see 0 callbacks on this target because it's the first
  time it boots.

* (de-)offloading can't happen concurrently with smp_init(), as
  rcutorture is initialized later, at least not before device_initcall(),
  and userspace isn't available yet.

* (de-)offloading can't happen concurrently with cpu_up(), courtesy of
  cpu_hotplug_lock.

But:

* The lazy shrinker might run concurrently with cpu_up(). It shouldn't
  try to grab the nocb_lock and risk an imbalance due to lazy_len
  supposed to be 0 but be extra cautious.

* Also be cautious against resume from hibernation potential subtleties.

So keep the locking and add some assertions and comments.

Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 14 +++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
index f4112fc663a7..fdd0616f2fd1 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
@@ -1442,7 +1442,7 @@ static void rcu_spawn_cpu_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
 				"rcuog/%d", rdp_gp->cpu);
 		if (WARN_ONCE(IS_ERR(t), "%s: Could not start rcuo GP kthread, OOM is now expected behavior\n", __func__)) {
 			mutex_unlock(&rdp_gp->nocb_gp_kthread_mutex);
-			goto end;
+			goto err;
 		}
 		WRITE_ONCE(rdp_gp->nocb_gp_kthread, t);
 		if (kthread_prio)
@@ -1454,7 +1454,7 @@ static void rcu_spawn_cpu_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
 	t = kthread_create(rcu_nocb_cb_kthread, rdp,
 			   "rcuo%c/%d", rcu_state.abbr, cpu);
 	if (WARN_ONCE(IS_ERR(t), "%s: Could not start rcuo CB kthread, OOM is now expected behavior\n", __func__))
-		goto end;
+		goto err;
 
 	if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
 		wake_up_process(t);
@@ -1467,7 +1467,15 @@ static void rcu_spawn_cpu_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
 	WRITE_ONCE(rdp->nocb_cb_kthread, t);
 	WRITE_ONCE(rdp->nocb_gp_kthread, rdp_gp->nocb_gp_kthread);
 	return;
-end:
+
+err:
+	/*
+	 * No need to protect against concurrent rcu_barrier()
+	 * because the number of callbacks should be 0 for a non-boot CPU,
+	 * therefore rcu_barrier() shouldn't even try to grab the nocb_lock.
+	 * But hold barrier_mutex to avoid nocb_lock imbalance from shrinker.
+	 */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(system_state > SYSTEM_BOOTING && rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist));
 	mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
 	if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp)) {
 		rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload(rdp);
-- 
2.45.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-05-30 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-05-30 13:45 [PATCH 00/11] rcu/nocb: (De-)offloading on offline CPUs Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 01/11] rcu/nocb: Introduce RCU_NOCB_LOCKDEP_WARN() Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 02/11] rcu/nocb: Move nocb field at the end of state struct Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 04/11] rcu/nocb: Introduce nocb mutex Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 05/11] rcu/nocb: (De-)offload callbacks on offline CPUs only Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 06/11] rcu/nocb: Remove halfway (de-)offloading handling from bypass Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 07/11] rcu/nocb: Remove halfway (de-)offloading handling from rcu_core()'s QS reporting Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 08/11] rcu/nocb: Remove halfway (de-)offloading handling from rcu_core Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 09/11] rcu/nocb: Remove SEGCBLIST_RCU_CORE Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 10/11] rcu/nocb: Remove SEGCBLIST_KTHREAD_CB Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` [PATCH 11/11] rcu/nocb: Simplify (de-)offloading state machine Frederic Weisbecker
2024-07-02 23:19   ` Boqun Feng
2024-07-03 12:17     ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-07-03 22:56   ` [PATCH 11/11 v2] " Frederic Weisbecker
2024-07-03 23:52     ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-07-19 17:30 ` [PATCH 00/11] rcu/nocb: (De-)offloading on offline CPUs 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=20240530134552.5467-4-frederic@kernel.org \
    --to=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neeraj.upadhyay@amd.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --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