public inbox for rcu@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	RCU <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
	Neeraj upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:07:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zd0ZtNu+Rt0qXkfS@lothringen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240220183115.74124-3-urezki@gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 07:31:13PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> +static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> +	struct llist_node *done, *rcu, *next, *head;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * This work execution can potentially execute
> +	 * while a new done tail is being updated by
> +	 * grace period kthread in rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup().
> +	 * So, read and updates of done tail need to
> +	 * follow acq-rel semantics.
> +	 *
> +	 * Given that wq semantics guarantees that a single work
> +	 * cannot execute concurrently by multiple kworkers,
> +	 * the done tail list manipulations are protected here.
> +	 */
> +	done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
> +	if (!done)
> +		return;
> +
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_sr_is_wait_head(done));
> +	head = done->next;
> +	done->next = NULL;

Can the following race happen?

CPU 0                                                   CPU 1
-----                                                   -----

// wait_tail == HEAD1
rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
    // has passed SR_MAX_USERS_WAKE_FROM_GP
    wait_tail->next = next;
    // done_tail = HEAD1
    smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
    queue_work() {
        test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work)
        __queue_work()
    }
}

                                                      set_work_pool_and_clear_pending()
                                                      rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work() {
// new GP, wait_tail == HEAD2
rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
    // executes all completion, but stop at HEAD1
    wait_tail->next = HEAD1;
    // done_tail = HEAD2
    smp_store_release(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail, wait_tail);
    queue_work() {
        test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(work)
        __queue_work()
    }
}
                                                          // done = HEAD2
                                                          done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);
                                                          // head = HEAD1
                                                          head = done->next;
                                                          done->next = NULL;
                                                          llist_for_each_safe() {
                                                              // completes all callbacks, release HEAD1
                                                          }
                                                      }
                                                      // Process second queue
                                                      set_work_pool_and_clear_pending()
                                                      rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work() {
                                                          // done = HEAD2
                                                          done = smp_load_acquire(&rcu_state.srs_done_tail);

// new GP, wait_tail == HEAD3
rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup() {
    // Finds HEAD2 with ->next == NULL at the end
    rcu_sr_put_wait_head(HEAD2)
    ...

// A few more GPs later
rcu_sr_normal_gp_init() {
     HEAD2 = rcu_sr_get_wait_head();
     llist_add(HEAD2, &rcu_state.srs_next);
                                                          // head == rcu_state.srs_next
                                                          head = done->next;
                                                          done->next = NULL;
                                                          llist_for_each_safe() {
                                                              // EXECUTE CALLBACKS TOO EARLY!!!
                                                          }
                                                      }

  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-26 23:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-20 18:31 [PATCH v5 0/4] Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency(v5) Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2024-02-20 18:31 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] rcu: Add data structures for synchronize_rcu() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2024-02-20 18:31 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] rcu: Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2024-02-26 23:07   ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2024-02-27  6:39     ` Z qiang
2024-02-27 14:37       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-02-27 16:16         ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-02-27 19:35     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-02-28 18:04     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-03-04 11:55       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-04 16:23         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-03-04 20:07           ` Paul E. McKenney
2024-03-05  9:35             ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-03-04 22:56           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05  9:38             ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-03-05 11:36               ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-02-27 16:15   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-02-27 17:03   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-02-27 20:51   ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28  9:28     ` Uladzislau Rezki
     [not found]   ` <4b932245-2825-4e53-87a4-44d2892e7c13@joelfernandes.org>
2024-02-27 22:50     ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-27 22:53       ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28 14:32   ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-28 16:44     ` Joel Fernandes
2024-02-20 18:31 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] rcu: Add a trace event for synchronize_rcu_normal() Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2024-02-20 18:31 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] rcu: Support direct wake-up of synchronize_rcu() users Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
2024-02-21  1:53 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] Reduce synchronize_rcu() latency(v5) 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=Zd0ZtNu+Rt0qXkfS@lothringen \
    --to=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=hdanton@sina.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --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