lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] rcu: Remove needless preemption disablement in rcu_all_qs()
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 09:28:38PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 09:51:01AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 01:43:44AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > The preemption is already disabled when we write rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs.
> > > > We can use __this_cpu_write() directly, although that path is mostly
> > > > used when CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > > > Cc: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>
> > > > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > > > Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
> > > > Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > index 27b74352cccf..38b3d01424d7 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > @@ -871,7 +871,7 @@ void rcu_all_qs(void)
> > > > preempt_enable();
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > > - this_cpu_write(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs, false);
> > > > + __this_cpu_write(rcu_data.rcu_urgent_qs, false);
> > >
> > > There's another subtle difference between this_cpu_write() and
> > > __this_cpu_write() aside from preempt. this_cpu_write() is also
> > > IRQ-safe, while __this_cpu_write() is not.
> > >
> > > I've not looked at the usage here to see if that is relevant, but the
> > > Changelog only mentioned the preempt side of things, and that argument
> > > is incomplete in general.
> >
> > You're right, I missed that. I see this rcu_urgent_qs is set by
> > RCU TASKS from rcu_tasks_wait_gp() (did I missed another path?).
> > Not sure if this is called from IRQ nor if it actually matters to
> > protect against IRQs for that single write.
>
> I think __this_cpu_write() being IRQ-unsafe means it may overwrite
> percpu writes to other bytes in the same word? Let's say the
> rcu_urgent_qs is the lowest byte in the word, the pseduo asm code of
> __this_cpu_write() may be:
>
> __this_cpu_write(ptr, v):
> long tmp = *ptr;
> tmp &= ~(0xff);
> tmp |= v;
> *ptr = tmp;
>
> and the following sequence introduces an overwrite:
>
> __this_cpu_write(ptr, v): // v is 0, and *ptr is 1
> long tmp = *ptr; // tmp is 1
> <interrupted>
> this_cpu_write() // modify another byte of *ptr, make it
> // 0xff01
> <ret from interrupt>
> tmp &= ~(0xff) // tmp is 0
> tmp |=v; // tmp is 0
> *ptr = tmp; // *ptr is 0, overwrite a percpu write on
> // another field.
>
> I know that many archs have byte-wise store, so compilers don't really
> have the reason to generate code as above, but __this_cpu_write() is
> just a normal write, nothing prevents this from happenning, unless I'm
> missing something here?

There can indeed be writes to .rcu_urgent_qs from interrupt
handlers, for example in CONFIG_RCU_STRICT_GRACE_PERIOD=y kernels
from rcu_read_unlock(). More conventionally, the RCU_SOFTIRQ
handler can run on the back of an interrupts, and can invoke
rcu_check_quiescent_state(), which invokes rcu_report_qs_rdp(), which
invokes rcu_disable_urgency_upon_qs(), which writes to ->rcu_urgent_qs.

RCU takes a strict view of data races, so this wants the existing
this_cpu_write().

However, RCU very likely has this_cpu_write() calls that should instead
be __this_cpu_write() calls and vice versa, so please do continue treating
any that you see with an appropriate level of suspicion.

Thanx, Paul

> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> >
> > I'm not quite used to rcu_tasks. Paul?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-06 18:24    [W:0.058 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site