public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: rcu@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH rcu 9/9] rcu: Fix rcu_barrier() VS post CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU invocation
Date: Tue,  4 Jun 2024 15:23:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240604222355.2370768-9-paulmck@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <657595c8-e86c-4594-a5b1-3c64a8275607@paulmck-laptop>

From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>

When rcu_barrier() calls rcu_rdp_cpu_online() and observes a CPU off
rnp->qsmaskinitnext, it means that all accesses from the offline CPU
preceding the CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU are visible to RCU barrier, including
callbacks expiration and counter updates.

However interrupts can still fire after stop_machine() re-enables
interrupts and before rcutree_report_cpu_dead(). The related accesses
happening between CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU and rnp->qsmaskinitnext clearing
are _NOT_ guaranteed to be seen by rcu_barrier() without proper
ordering, especially when callbacks are invoked there to the end, making
rcutree_migrate_callback() bypass barrier_lock.

The following theoretical race example can make rcu_barrier() hang:

CPU 0                                               CPU 1
-----                                               -----
//cpu_down()
smpboot_park_threads()
//ksoftirqd is parked now
<IRQ>
rcu_sched_clock_irq()
   invoke_rcu_core()
do_softirq()
   rcu_core()
      rcu_do_batch()
         // callback storm
         // rcu_do_batch() returns
         // before completing all
         // of them
   // do_softirq also returns early because of
   // timeout. It defers to ksoftirqd but
   // it's parked
</IRQ>
stop_machine()
   take_cpu_down()
                                                    rcu_barrier()
                                                        spin_lock(barrier_lock)
                                                        // observes rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(&rdp->cblist) != 0
<IRQ>
do_softirq()
   rcu_core()
      rcu_do_batch()
         //completes all pending callbacks
         //smp_mb() implied _after_ callback number dec
</IRQ>

rcutree_report_cpu_dead()
   rnp->qsmaskinitnext &= ~rdp->grpmask;

rcutree_migrate_callback()
   // no callback, early return without locking
   // barrier_lock
                                                        //observes !rcu_rdp_cpu_online(rdp)
                                                        rcu_barrier_entrain()
                                                           rcu_segcblist_entrain()
                                                              // Observe rcu_segcblist_n_cbs(rsclp) == 0
                                                              // because no barrier between reading
                                                              // rnp->qsmaskinitnext and rsclp->len
                                                              rcu_segcblist_add_len()
                                                                 smp_mb__before_atomic()
                                                                 // will now observe the 0 count and empty
                                                                 // list, but too late, we enqueue regardless
                                                                 WRITE_ONCE(rsclp->len, rsclp->len + v);
                                                        // ignored barrier callback
                                                        // rcu barrier stall...

This could be solved with a read memory barrier, enforcing the message
passing between rnp->qsmaskinitnext and rsclp->len, matching the full
memory barrier after rsclp->len addition in rcu_segcblist_add_len()
performed at the end of rcu_do_batch().

However the rcu_barrier() is complicated enough and probably doesn't
need too many more subtleties. CPU down is a slowpath and the
barrier_lock seldom contended. Solve the issue with unconditionally
locking the barrier_lock on rcutree_migrate_callbacks(). This makes sure
that either rcu_barrier() sees the empty queue or its entrained
callback will be migrated.

Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
---
 kernel/rcu/tree.c | 10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 408b020c9501f..c58fc10fb5969 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -5147,11 +5147,15 @@ void rcutree_migrate_callbacks(int cpu)
 	struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
 	bool needwake;
 
-	if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp) ||
-	    rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist))
-		return;  /* No callbacks to migrate. */
+	if (rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
+		return;
 
 	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rcu_state.barrier_lock, flags);
+	if (rcu_segcblist_empty(&rdp->cblist)) {
+		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rcu_state.barrier_lock, flags);
+		return;  /* No callbacks to migrate. */
+	}
+
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_rdp_cpu_online(rdp));
 	rcu_barrier_entrain(rdp);
 	my_rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data);
-- 
2.40.1


      parent reply	other threads:[~2024-06-04 22:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-04 22:23 [PATCH rcu 0/9] Miscellaneous fixes for v6.11 Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 1/9] rcu: Add lockdep_assert_in_rcu_read_lock() and friends Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-20 19:38   ` Jeff Johnson
2025-02-20 22:04     ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-20 23:51       ` Jeff Johnson
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 2/9] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() delays when all wait heads are in use Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-05 12:09   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-05 18:38     ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-06  3:46       ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2024-06-06 16:49         ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-11 10:12           ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 3/9] rcu/tree: Reduce wake up for synchronize_rcu() common case Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-05 16:35   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-06-05 18:42     ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-06  5:58     ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-06 18:12       ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-07  1:51         ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-10 15:12           ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-11 13:46             ` Neeraj upadhyay
2024-06-11 16:17               ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 4/9] rcu: Disable interrupts directly in rcu_gp_init() Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 5/9] srcu: Disable interrupts directly in srcu_gp_end() Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 6/9] rcu: Add rcutree.nocb_patience_delay to reduce nohz_full OS jitter Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-10  5:05   ` Leonardo Bras
2024-06-10 15:10     ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-07-03 16:21   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-07-03 17:25     ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-07-04 22:18       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-07-05  0:26         ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 7/9] MAINTAINERS: Add Uladzislau Rezki as RCU maintainer Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` [PATCH rcu 8/9] rcu: Eliminate lockless accesses to rcu_sync->gp_count Paul E. McKenney
2024-06-04 22:23 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]

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=20240604222355.2370768-9-paulmck@kernel.org \
    --to=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rcu@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    /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