From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent (de-)offloading
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 23:09:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZB4fhA1BafN7h2N3@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c614c542-f2b5-4b39-bbc4-ae5f0a125c81@paulmck-laptop>
Le Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 04:18:24PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> > @@ -1336,13 +1336,25 @@ lazy_rcu_shrink_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> > unsigned long flags;
> > unsigned long count = 0;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Protect against concurrent (de-)offloading. Otherwise nocb locking
> > + * may be ignored or imbalanced.
> > + */
> > + mutex_lock(&rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
>
> I was worried about this possibly leading to out-of-memory deadlock,
> but if I recall correctly, the (de-)offloading process never allocates
> memory, so this should be OK?
Good point. It _should_ be fine but like you, Joel and Hillf pointed out
it's asking for trouble.
We could try Joel's idea to use mutex_trylock() as a best effort, which
should be fine as it's mostly uncontended.
The alternative is to force nocb locking and check the offloading state
right after. So instead of:
rcu_nocb_lock_irqsave(rdp, flags);
//flush stuff
rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags);
Have:
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(rdp->nocb_lock, flags);
if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(rdp->nocb_lock, flags);
continue;
}
//flush stuff
rcu_nocb_unlock_irqrestore(rdp, flags);
But it's not pretty and also disqualifies the last two patches as
rcu_nocb_mask can't be iterated safely anymore.
What do you think?
> > /* Snapshot count of all CPUs */
> > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > struct rcu_data *rdp = per_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data, cpu);
> > - int _count = READ_ONCE(rdp->lazy_len);
> > + int _count;
> > +
> > + if (!rcu_rdp_is_offloaded(rdp))
> > + continue;
>
> If the CPU is offloaded, isn't ->lazy_len guaranteed to be zero?
>
> Or can it contain garbage after a de-offloading operation?
If it's deoffloaded, ->lazy_len is indeed (supposed to be) guaranteed to be zero.
Bypass is flushed and disabled atomically early on de-offloading and the
flush resets ->lazy_len.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-24 22:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-22 19:44 [PATCH 0/4] rcu/nocb: Shrinker related boring fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent (de-)offloading Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 23:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-24 0:55 ` Joel Fernandes
2023-03-24 1:06 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-24 22:09 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2023-03-24 22:51 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-26 20:01 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-26 21:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-29 16:07 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-29 20:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] rcu/nocb: Fix shrinker race against callback enqueuer Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 23:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] rcu/nocb: Recheck lazy callbacks under the ->nocb_lock from shrinker Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-22 23:21 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-22 19:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] rcu/nocb: Make shrinker to iterate only NOCB CPUs Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-24 0:41 ` Joel Fernandes
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-03-29 16:01 [PATCH 0/4 v2] rcu/nocb: Shrinker related boring fixes Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-29 16:02 ` [PATCH 1/4] rcu/nocb: Protect lazy shrinker against concurrent (de-)offloading Frederic Weisbecker
2023-03-29 20:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2023-03-29 21:18 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=ZB4fhA1BafN7h2N3@localhost.localdomain \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=quic_neeraju@quicinc.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