From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: paulmck@kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rcu] Fix get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() GP-start detection
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 15:56:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z5OqE-eJDo-1W_-r@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YSo1NTmx8FE3WNN7zL9so24o40HXhxubHJVvfxWBYtz0w@mail.gmail.com>
Le Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:49:47PM -0500, Joel Fernandes a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 7:59 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > The get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full()
> > functions use the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field to detect
> > the beginnings and ends of grace periods, respectively. This choice is
> > necessary for the poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() function because
> > (give or take counter wrap), the following sequence is guaranteed not
> > to trigger:
> >
> > get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rgos);
> > synchronize_rcu();
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rgos));
> >
> > The RCU callbacks that awaken synchronize_rcu() instances are
> > guaranteed not to be invoked before the root rcu_node structure's
> > ->gp_seq field is updated to indicate the end of the grace period.
> > However, these callbacks might start being invoked immediately
> > thereafter, in particular, before rcu_state.gp_seq has been updated.
> > Therefore, poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() must refer to the
> > root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field. Because this field is
> > updated under this structure's ->lock, any code following a call to
> > poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() will be fully ordered after the
> > full grace-period computation, as is required by RCU's memory-ordering
> > semantics.
> >
> > By symmetry, the get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() function should also
> > use this same root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field. But it turns out
> > that symmetry is profoundly (though extremely infrequently) destructive
> > in this case. To see this, consider the following sequence of events:
> >
> > 1. CPU 0 starts a new grace period, and updates rcu_state.gp_seq
> > accordingly.
I don't think so because idle CPUs are waited upon to report a QS, unlike
offline CPUs that don't appear in ->qsmaskinitnext.
If the CPU 1 is idle while the grace period kthread scans its
ct_rcu_watching_cpu(), then the QS is reported on its behalf and when CPU 1
goes out of idle it is guaranteed to see the new started GP on the root node.
If the CPU 1 is not idle while the grace period kthread scans its
ct_rcu_watching_cpu(), then CPU 1 must report a QS and that cancels the race.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-24 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-13 0:59 [PATCH RFC rcu] Fix get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() GP-start detection Paul E. McKenney
2024-12-13 19:49 ` [PATCH RFC v2 " Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 14:49 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-01-24 15:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 16:42 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-01-24 19:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 22:25 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-01-24 22:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 23:03 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-01-25 0:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-25 14:56 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-01-25 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-27 1:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-01-27 1:22 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-01-27 2:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-27 2:55 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-01-27 2:58 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-01-27 16:49 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-27 18:45 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-02-11 0:28 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-02-11 1:22 ` Joel Fernandes
2025-02-12 10:14 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-02-12 10:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2025-01-24 1:49 ` [PATCH RFC " Joel Fernandes
2025-01-24 14:56 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2025-01-24 20:21 ` Joel Fernandes
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=Z5OqE-eJDo-1W_-r@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@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