From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu,
laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca,
josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/20] rcu: fix race condition in synchronize_sched_expedited()
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:52:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D0CD8C7.8070604@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1292619291-2468-11-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Hello,
On 12/17/2010 09:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The new (early 2010) implementation of synchronize_sched_expedited() uses
> try_stop_cpu() to force a context switch on every CPU. It also permits
> concurrent calls to synchronize_sched_expedited() to share a single call
> to try_stop_cpu() through use of an atomically incremented
> synchronize_sched_expedited_count variable. Unfortunately, this is
> subject to failure as follows:
>
> o Task A invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), try_stop_cpus()
> succeeds, but Task A is preempted before getting to the atomic
> increment of synchronize_sched_expedited_count.
>
> o Task B also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), with exactly
> the same outcome as Task A.
>
> o Task C also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), again with
> exactly the same outcome as Tasks A and B.
>
> o Task D also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), but only
> gets as far as acquiring the mutex within try_stop_cpus()
> before being preempted, interrupted, or otherwise delayed.
>
> o Task E also invokes synchronize_sched_expedited(), but only
> gets to the snapshotting of synchronize_sched_expedited_count.
>
> o Tasks A, B, and C all increment synchronize_sched_expedited_count.
>
> o Task E fails to get the mutex, so checks the new value
> of synchronize_sched_expedited_count. It finds that the
> value has increased, so (wrongly) assumes that its work
> has been done, returning despite there having been no
> expedited grace period since it began.
>
> The solution is to have the lowest-numbered CPU atomically increment
> the synchronize_sched_expedited_count variable within the
> synchronize_sched_expedited_cpu_stop() function, which is under
> the protection of the mutex acquired by try_stop_cpus(). However, this
> also requires that piggybacking tasks wait for three rather than two
> instances of try_stop_cpu(), because we cannot control the order in
> which the per-CPU callback function occur.
>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
I suppose this should go -stable?
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-18 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-17 20:54 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/20] second preview of RCU patches for 2.6.38 Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 01/20] rcu: add priority-inversion testing to rcutorture Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 02/20] rcu: move TINY_RCU from softirq to kthread Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 03/20] rcu: priority boosting for TINY_PREEMPT_RCU Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 04/20] rcu: add tracing for TINY_RCU and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 05/20] rcu: document TINY_RCU and TINY_PREEMPT_RCU tracing Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 06/20] rcu: Distinguish between boosting and boosted Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 07/20] rcu: get rid of obsolete "classic" names in TREE_RCU tracing Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 08/20] rcu,cleanup: move synchronize_sched_expedited() out of sched.c Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 09/20] rcu,cleanup: simplify the code when cpu is dying Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 10/20] rcu: update documentation/comments for Lai's adoption patch Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 11/20] rcu: fix race condition in synchronize_sched_expedited() Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-18 15:52 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2010-12-18 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 12/20] rcu: Make synchronize_srcu_expedited() fast if running readers Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 13/20] rcu: increase synchronize_sched_expedited() batching Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-18 16:13 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-18 20:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-19 9:43 ` Tejun Heo
2010-12-19 16:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-20 10:33 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-20 13:40 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-12-20 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-12-21 7:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 14/20] rcu: Stop chasing QS if another CPU did it for us Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 15/20] rcu: Keep gpnum and completed fields synchronized Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-20 2:13 ` Lai Jiangshan
2010-12-20 2:14 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2010-12-20 16:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 16/20] rcu: fine-tune grace-period begin/end checks Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 17/20] rcu: limit rcu_node leaf-level fanout Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 18/20] rcu: reduce __call_rcu()-induced contention on rcu_node structures Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 19/20] rculist: fix borked __list_for_each_rcu() macro Paul E. McKenney
2010-12-17 20:54 ` [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 20/20] rcu: remove unused " 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=4D0CD8C7.8070604@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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