lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/22] rcu: Fix grace-period hangs due to race with CPU offline
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 07:51:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:10:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Without special fail-safe quiescent-state-propagation checks, grace-period
> > hangs can result from the following scenario:
> >
> > 1. CPU 1 goes offline.
> >
> > 2. Because CPU 1 is the only CPU in the system blocking the current
> > grace period, as soon as rcu_cleanup_dying_idle_cpu()'s call to
> > rcu_report_qs_rnp() returns.
> >
> > 3. At this point, the leaf rcu_node structure's ->lock is no longer
> > held: rcu_report_qs_rnp() has released it, as it must in order
> > to awaken the RCU grace-period kthread.
> >
> > 4. At this point, that same leaf rcu_node structure's ->qsmaskinitnext
> > field still records CPU 1 as being online. This is absolutely
> > necessary because the scheduler uses RCU, and ->qsmaskinitnext
>
> Can you expand a bit on this, where does the scheduler care about the
> online state of the CPU that's about to call into arch_cpu_idle_dead()?

Because the CPU does a context switch between the time that the CPU gets
marked offline from the viewpoint of cpu_offline() and the time that
the CPU finally makes it to arch_cpu_idle_dead(). Plus reporting the
quiescent state (rcu_report_qs_rnp()) can result in waking up RCU's
grace-period kthread. During that context switch and that wakeup,
the scheduler needs RCU to continue paying attention to the outgoing
CPU, right?

> > contains RCU's idea as to which CPUs are online. Therefore,
> > invoking rcu_report_qs_rnp() after clearing CPU 1's bit from
> > ->qsmaskinitnext would result in a lockdep-RCU splat due to
> > RCU being used from an offline CPU.
> >
> > 5. RCU's grace-period kthread awakens, sees that the old grace period
> > has completed and that a new one is needed. It therefore starts
> > a new grace period, but because CPU 1's leaf rcu_node structure's
> > ->qsmaskinitnext field still shows CPU 1 as being online, this new
> > grace period is initialized to wait for a quiescent state from the
> > now-offline CPU 1.
>
> If we're past cpuhp_report_idle_cpu() -> rcu_report_dead(), then
> cpu_offline() is true. Is that not sufficient state to avoid this?

Not from what I can see. To avoid this, I need to synchronize
with rcu_gp_init(), but I cannot rely on the usual rcu_node ->lock
synchronization without severely complicating quiescent-state reporting.
For one thing, quiescent-state reporting can require waking up the
grace-period kthread, which cannot be done while holding any rcu_node
->lock due to deadlock. I -could- defer the wakeup (as is done in
several other places), but adding the separate lock is much simpler,
and given that both grace-period initialization and CPU hotplug are
relatively rare operations, the extra overhead is way down in the noise.

Or am I missing a trick here?

Thanx, Paul

> > 6. Without the fail-safe force-quiescent-state checks, there would
> > be no quiescent state from the now-offline CPU 1, which would
> > eventually result in RCU CPU stall warnings and memory exhaustion.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-26 20:28    [W:0.073 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site