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 04/11] rcu/nocb: Introduce nocb mutex
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 15:45:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240530134552.5467-5-frederic@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240530134552.5467-1-frederic@kernel.org>
The barrier_mutex is used currently to protect (de-)offloading
operations and prevent from nocb_lock locking imbalance in rcu_barrier()
and shrinker, and also from misordered RCU barrier invocation.
Now since RCU (de-)offloading is going to happen on offline CPUs, an RCU
barrier will have to be executed while transitionning from offloaded to
de-offloaded state. And this can't happen while holding the
barrier_mutex.
Introduce a NOCB mutex to protect (de-)offloading transitions. The
barrier_mutex is still held for now when necessary to avoid barrier
callbacks reordering and nocb_lock imbalance.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.c | 3 +++
kernel/rcu/tree.h | 1 +
kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h | 20 ++++++++++++--------
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 1 +
4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 4cbc4e78a8c5..e904c187c281 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -97,6 +97,9 @@ static struct rcu_state rcu_state = {
.srs_cleanup_work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(rcu_state.srs_cleanup_work,
rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work),
.srs_cleanups_pending = ATOMIC_INIT(0),
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
+ .nocb_mutex = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(rcu_state.nocb_mutex),
+#endif
};
/* Dump rcu_node combining tree at boot to verify correct setup. */
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index a297dc89a09c..16e6fe63d93c 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -421,6 +421,7 @@ struct rcu_state {
atomic_t srs_cleanups_pending; /* srs inflight worker cleanups. */
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_NOCB_CPU
+ struct mutex nocb_mutex; /* Guards (de-)offloading */
int nocb_is_setup; /* nocb is setup from boot */
#endif
};
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
index fdd0616f2fd1..16bcb8b13a5e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
@@ -1141,6 +1141,7 @@ int rcu_nocb_cpu_deoffload(int cpu)
int ret = 0;
cpus_read_lock();
+ mutex_lock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp)) {
if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
@@ -1153,6 +1154,7 @@ int rcu_nocb_cpu_deoffload(int cpu)
}
}
mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
cpus_read_unlock();
return ret;
@@ -1228,6 +1230,7 @@ int rcu_nocb_cpu_offload(int cpu)
int ret = 0;
cpus_read_lock();
+ mutex_lock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp)) {
if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
@@ -1240,6 +1243,7 @@ int rcu_nocb_cpu_offload(int cpu)
}
}
mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
cpus_read_unlock();
return ret;
@@ -1257,7 +1261,7 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
return 0;
/* Protect rcu_nocb_mask against concurrent (de-)offloading. */
- if (!mutex_trylock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex))
+ if (!mutex_trylock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex))
return 0;
/* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
@@ -1267,7 +1271,7 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_count(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
count += READ_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len);
}
- mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
return count ? count : SHRINK_EMPTY;
}
@@ -1285,9 +1289,9 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
* Protect against concurrent (de-)offloading. Otherwise nocb locking
* may be ignored or imbalanced.
*/
- if (!mutex_trylock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex)) {
+ if (!mutex_trylock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex)) {
/*
- * But really don't insist if barrier_mutex is contended since we
+ * But really don't insist if nocb_mutex is contended since we
* can't guarantee that it will never engage in a dependency
* chain involving memory allocation. The lock is seldom contended
* anyway.
@@ -1326,7 +1330,7 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
break;
}
- mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
return count ? count : SHRINK_STOP;
}
@@ -1473,15 +1477,15 @@ static void rcu_spawn_cpu_nocb_kthread(int cpu)
* 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.
+ * But hold nocb_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);
+ mutex_lock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp)) {
rcu_nocb_rdp_deoffload(rdp);
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, rcu_nocb_mask);
}
- mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex);
}
/* How many CB CPU IDs per GP kthread? Default of -1 for sqrt(nr_cpu_ids). */
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 0d6b152a9a17..05239042a08b 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ static bool rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(struct rcu_data *rdp)
!(lockdep_is_held(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex) ||
(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) && lockdep_is_cpus_held()) ||
lockdep_is_held(&rdp->nocb_lock) ||
+ lockdep_is_held(&rcu_state.nocb_mutex) ||
(!(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT) && preemptible()) &&
rdp == this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data)) ||
rcu_current_is_nocb_kthread(rdp)),
--
2.45.1
next prev 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 ` [PATCH 03/11] rcu/nocb: Assert no callbacks while nocb kthread allocation fails Frederic Weisbecker
2024-05-30 13:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
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=20240530134552.5467-5-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