lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] rcu: exp: Fix "must hold exp_mutex" comments for QS reporting functions
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:30:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Like sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(), but this function assumes the caller
> > + * doesn't hold the rcu_node's ->lock, and will acquire and release the lock
> > + * itself
> > + */
> > +static bool sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done_unlocked(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + bool ret;
> > +
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > + ret = sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp);
>
> Let's see... The sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done() function checks the
> ->exp_tasks pointer and the ->expmask bitmask. The number of bits in the
> mask can only decrease, and the ->exp_tasks pointer can only transition
> from NULL to non-NULL when there is at least one bit set. However,
> there is no ordering in sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(), so it is possible
> that it could be fooled without the lock:
>
> o CPU 0 in sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done() reads ->exp_tasks and
> sees that it is NULL.
>
> o CPU 1 blocks within an RCU read-side critical section, so
> it enqueues the task and points ->exp_tasks at it and
> clears CPU 1's bit in ->expmask.
>
> o All other CPUs clear their bits in ->expmask.
>
> o CPU 0 reads ->expmask, sees that it is zero, so incorrectly
> concludes that all quiescent states have completed, despite
> the fact that ->exp_tasks is non-NULL.
>
> So it seems to me that the lock is needed. Good catch!!! The problem
> would occur only if the task running on CPU 0 received a spurious
> wakeup, but that could potentially happen.
>

Thanks for the analysis ;-)

> If lock contention becomes a problem, memory-ordering tricks could be
> applied, but the lock is of course simpler.
>

Agreed.

> I am guessing that this is a prototype patch, and that you are planning

Yes, this is a prototype. And I'm preparing a proper patch to send
later.

> to add lockdep annotations in more places, but either way please let
> me know.
>

Give it's a bug as per your analysis, I'd like to defer other lockdep
annotations and send this first. However, I'm currently getting other
lockdep splats after applying this, so I need to get that sorted first.

Regards,
Boqun

> Thanx, Paul
>
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +
> > /*
> > * Report the exit from RCU read-side critical section for the last task
> > * that queued itself during or before the current expedited preemptible-RCU
> > @@ -490,6 +512,7 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> > int ret;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name, rcu_exp_gp_seq_endval(rsp), TPS("startwait"));
> > jiffies_stall = rcu_jiffies_till_stall_check();
> > @@ -498,9 +521,9 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > for (;;) {
> > ret = swait_event_timeout(
> > rsp->expedited_wq,
> > - sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp_root),
> > + sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done_unlocked(rnp_root),
> > jiffies_stall);
> > - if (ret > 0 || sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp_root))
> > + if (ret > 0 || sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done_unlocked(rnp_root))
> > return;
> > WARN_ON(ret < 0); /* workqueues should not be signaled. */
> > if (rcu_cpu_stall_suppress)
> > @@ -533,8 +556,14 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> > if (rnp == rnp_root)
> > continue; /* printed unconditionally */
> > - if (sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp))
> > +
> > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > + if (sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp)) {
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > continue;
> > + }
> > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > +
> > pr_cont(" l=%u:%d-%d:%#lx/%c",
> > rnp->level, rnp->grplo, rnp->grphi,
> > rnp->expmask,
> > --
> > 2.16.2
> >
>
>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 05:51    [W:0.065 / U:4.096 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site