Re: [PATCH 1/3] rcu/exp: Protect against early QS report

Paul E. McKenney
2025-03-13T17:04:14Z

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 05:40:19PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 01:10:43AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:25:57AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > When a grace period is started, the ->expmask of each node is set up
> > > from sync_exp_reset_tree(). Then later on each leaf node also initialize
> > > its ->exp_tasks pointer.
> > >
> > > This means that the initialization of the quiescent state of a node and
> > > the initialization of its blocking tasks happen with an unlocked node
> > > gap in-between.
> > >
> > > It happens to be fine because nothing is expected to report an exp
> > > quiescent state within this gap, since no IPI have been issued yet and
> > > every rdp's ->cpu_no_qs.b.exp should be false.
> > >
> > > However if it were to happen by accident, the quiescent state could be
> > > reported and propagated while ignoring tasks that blocked _before_ the
> > > start of the grace period.
> > >
> > > Prevent such trouble to happen in the future and initialize both the
> > > quiescent states mask to report and the blocked tasks head from the same
> > > node locked block.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> >
> > Thank you for looking into this!
> >
> > One question: What happens if a CPU has tasks pending during the
> > call to sync_exp_reset_tree(), but all of these tasks complete
> > their RCU read-side critical sections before execution reaches
> > __sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus()?
> >
> > (My guess is that all is well, but even if so, it would be good to record
> > why in the commit log.)
>
> All is (expected to be) well because the QS won't be reported yet:
> rdp->cpu_no_qs.b.exp is still false, therefore rnp->expmask will
> still have the RDPs masks set.
>
> !PREEMPT_RCU is different because sync_sched_exp_online_cleanup()
> can report the QS earlier. But that patch is a PREEMPT_RCU concern
> only.
>
> I'll drop a note on the changelog.

Thank you!

Thanx, Paul

> Thanks.
>
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > ---
> > > kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h | 14 +++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > index 8d4895c854c5..caff16e441d1 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > @@ -141,6 +141,13 @@ static void __maybe_unused sync_exp_reset_tree(void)
> > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->expmask);
> > > WRITE_ONCE(rnp->expmask, rnp->expmaskinit);
> > > + /*
> > > + * Need to wait for any blocked tasks as well. Note that
> > > + * additional blocking tasks will also block the expedited GP
> > > + * until such time as the ->expmask bits are cleared.
> > > + */
> > > + if (rcu_is_leaf_node(rnp) && rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp))
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks, rnp->blkd_tasks.next);
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > }
> > > }
> > > @@ -393,13 +400,6 @@ static void __sync_rcu_exp_select_node_cpus(struct rcu_exp_work *rewp)
> > > }
> > > mask_ofl_ipi = rnp->expmask & ~mask_ofl_test;
> > >
> > > - /*
> > > - * Need to wait for any blocked tasks as well. Note that
> > > - * additional blocking tasks will also block the expedited GP
> > > - * until such time as the ->expmask bits are cleared.
> > > - */
> > > - if (rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp))
> > > - WRITE_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks, rnp->blkd_tasks.next);
> > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > >
> > > /* IPI the remaining CPUs for expedited quiescent state. */
> > > --
> > > 2.46.0
> > >