lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] RCU changes for v3.3
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 01:11:37PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 08:57:49PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Le mardi 24 janvier 2012 à 11:41 -0800, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> >
> > > Ah, I see... I need to find one of trace_power_start(),
> > > trace_power_frequency(), or trace_power_end(). I would have to guess
> > > that this is either the trace_power_start() or the trace_power_end()
> > > called from drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c lines 97 and 102. Those are
> > > within cpuidle_idle_call(), which are called from cpu_idle() in
> > > arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c and arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c, so this
> > > sounds plausible.
> > >
> > > And they are indeed busted -- RCU believes the CPU is idle at the point
> > > that cpuidle_idle_call() is invoked.
> > >
> > > A hacky patch is below. Here are some of my concerns with it:
> > >
> > > 1. Is there a configuration in which the scheduler clock gets
> > > turned off, but in which cpuidle_idle_call() always returns
> > > zero? If so, we either really need RCU to consider the entire
> > > inner loop to be idle (thus needing to snapshot the value of
> > > cpuidle_idle_call() in the outer loop) or we need explicit calls
> > > to rcu_sched_qs() and friends.
> > >
> > > Yes, we could momentarily exit RCU idleness mode, but I would
> > > need to think that one through...
> > >
> > > 2. I am not totally confident that I have the order of operations
> > > surrounding the call to pm_idle() correct.
> > >
> > > 3. This only addresses x86, and it looks like a few other architectures
> > > have this same problem.
> > >
> > > 4. Probably other things that I haven't thought of.
> > >
> > > That said, the patch does seem to compile, at least on my 32-bit
> > > laptop...
> > >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > idle: Avoid using RCU when RCU thinks the CPU is idle
> > >
> > > The x86 idle loops invoke cpuidle_idle_call() which uses tracing
> > > which uses RCU. Unfortunately, these idle loops have already
> > > told RCU to ignore this CPU when they call it. This patch hacks
> > > the idle loops to avoid this problem, but probably causing several
> > > other problems in the process.
> > >
> > > Not-yet-signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > Hi Paul
> >
> > Just tested it on my x86_64 machine, but warnings are still here
> >
> > Thanks !
>
> Gah!!! The mwait_idle() function itself (which is the default value of
> the pm_idle function pointer) uses tracing and thus RCU! What part of
> "don't use RCU from idle CPUs" was unclear, one wonders?
>
> Ah well, the good news is that we can now detect such abuse and fix it.
>
> But fixing it appears to require pushing rcu_idle_enter() and
> rcu_idle_exit() pairs down to the bottom of each and every idle loop
> and governor.
>
> So... The cpuidle_idle_call() function has an idle loop inside of itself,
> namely the ->enter() call for the desired target state. It does tracing
> on both sides of that call. Should the ->enter() calls actually avoid
> use of tracing, I could push the rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit()
> down into cpuidle_idle_call(). We seem to have a ladder_governor and
> a menu_governor in 3.2, and these have states, which in turn have ->enter
> functions.
>
> Hmmm... Residual power dissipation is given in milliwatts. I could
> imagine some heartburn from many of the more aggressive embedded folks,
> given that they might prefer microwatts -- or maybe even nanowatts,
> for all I know.
>
> There are a bunch of states defined in drivers/idle/intel_idle.c,
> and these use intel_idle() as their ->enter() states. This one looks
> to have a nice place for rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit().
>
> But I also need to push rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit() into any
> function that can be assigned to pm_idle(): default_idle(), poll_idle(),
> mwait_idle(), and amd_e400_idle(). OK, that is not all -that- bad,
> though this must also be done for a number of other architectures as well.
>
> OK, will post a patch. I will need testing -- clearly my testing on KVM
> is missing a few important code paths...

And here is another version of the patch.

Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------
x86: Avoid invoking RCU when CPU is idle

The idle loop is a quiscent state for RCU, which means that RCU ignores
CPUs that have told RCU that they are idle via rcu_idle_enter(). There
are nevertheless quite a few places where idle CPUs use RCU, most commonly
indirectly via tracing. This patch fixes these problems for x86.

Many of these bugs have been in the kernel for quite some time, but
Frederic's recent change now gives warnings.

This patch takes the straightforward approach of pushing the
rcu_idle_enter()/rcu_idle_exit() pair further down into the core
of the idle loop.

Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
index 15763af..f6978b0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
@@ -386,17 +386,21 @@ void default_idle(void)
*/
smp_mb();

+ rcu_idle_enter();
if (!need_resched())
safe_halt(); /* enables interrupts racelessly */
else
local_irq_enable();
+ rcu_idle_exit();
current_thread_info()->status |= TS_POLLING;
trace_power_end(smp_processor_id());
trace_cpu_idle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, smp_processor_id());
} else {
local_irq_enable();
/* loop is done by the caller */
+ rcu_idle_enter();
cpu_relax();
+ rcu_idle_exit();
}
}
#ifdef CONFIG_APM_MODULE
@@ -457,14 +461,19 @@ static void mwait_idle(void)

__monitor((void *)&current_thread_info()->flags, 0, 0);
smp_mb();
+ rcu_idle_enter();
if (!need_resched())
__sti_mwait(0, 0);
else
local_irq_enable();
+ rcu_idle_exit();
trace_power_end(smp_processor_id());
trace_cpu_idle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, smp_processor_id());
- } else
+ } else {
local_irq_enable();
+ rcu_idle_enter();
+ rcu_idle_exit();
+ }
}

/*
@@ -477,8 +486,10 @@ static void poll_idle(void)
trace_power_start(POWER_CSTATE, 0, smp_processor_id());
trace_cpu_idle(0, smp_processor_id());
local_irq_enable();
+ rcu_idle_enter();
while (!need_resched())
cpu_relax();
+ rcu_idle_exit();
trace_power_end(smp_processor_id());
trace_cpu_idle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, smp_processor_id());
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
index 485204f..6d9d4d5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c
@@ -100,7 +100,6 @@ void cpu_idle(void)
/* endless idle loop with no priority at all */
while (1) {
tick_nohz_idle_enter();
- rcu_idle_enter();
while (!need_resched()) {

check_pgt_cache();
@@ -117,7 +116,6 @@ void cpu_idle(void)
pm_idle();
start_critical_timings();
}
- rcu_idle_exit();
tick_nohz_idle_exit();
preempt_enable_no_resched();
schedule();
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
index 9b9fe4a..55a1a35 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
@@ -140,13 +140,9 @@ void cpu_idle(void)
/* Don't trace irqs off for idle */
stop_critical_timings();

- /* enter_idle() needs rcu for notifiers */
- rcu_idle_enter();
-
if (cpuidle_idle_call())
pm_idle();

- rcu_idle_exit();
start_critical_timings();

/* In many cases the interrupt that ended idle
diff --git a/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c b/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
index 20bce51..a9ddab8 100644
--- a/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/idle/intel_idle.c
@@ -261,6 +261,7 @@ static int intel_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
kt_before = ktime_get_real();

stop_critical_timings();
+ rcu_idle_enter();
if (!need_resched()) {

__monitor((void *)&current_thread_info()->flags, 0, 0);
@@ -268,6 +269,7 @@ static int intel_idle(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
if (!need_resched())
__mwait(eax, ecx);
}
+ rcu_idle_exit();

start_critical_timings();

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-25 00:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans