Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:09:22 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 0/5] arm64/irqentry: remove duplicate housekeeping of |
| |
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:23:18AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 03:59:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 06:36:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > [Adding Paul for RCU, s390 folk for entry code RCU semantics] > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:28:32PM +0800, Pingfan Liu wrote: > > > > After introducing arm64/kernel/entry_common.c which is akin to > > > > kernel/entry/common.c , the housekeeping of rcu/trace are done twice as > > > > the following: > > > > enter_from_kernel_mode()->rcu_irq_enter(). > > > > And > > > > gic_handle_irq()->...->handle_domain_irq()->irq_enter()->rcu_irq_enter() > > > > > > > > Besides redundance, based on code analysis, the redundance also raise > > > > some mistake, e.g. rcu_data->dynticks_nmi_nesting inc 2, which causes > > > > rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() unexpected. > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > > > The fundamental questionss are: > > > > > > 1) Who is supposed to be responsible for doing the rcu entry/exit? > > > > > > 2) Is it supposed to matter if this happens multiple times? > > > > > > For (1), I'd generally expect that this is supposed to happen in the > > > arch/common entry code, since that itself (or the irqchip driver) could > > > depend on RCU, and if that's the case thatn handle_domain_irq() > > > shouldn't need to call rcu_irq_enter(). That would be consistent with > > > the way we handle all other exceptions. > > > > > > For (2) I don't know whether the level of nesting is suppoosed to > > > matter. I was under the impression it wasn't meant to matter in general, > > > so I'm a little surprised that rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() depends on a > > > specific level of nesting. > > > > > > >From a glance it looks like this would cause rcu_sched_clock_irq() to > > > skip setting TIF_NEED_RESCHED, and to not call invoke_rcu_core(), which > > > doesn't sound right, at least... > > > > > > Thomas, Paul, thoughts? > > > > It is absolutely required that rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() calls > > be balanced. Normally, this is taken care of by the fact that irq_enter() > > invokes rcu_irq_enter() and irq_exit() invokes rcu_irq_exit(). Similarly, > > nmi_enter() invokes rcu_nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() invokes rcu_nmi_exit(). > > Sure; I didn't mean to suggest those weren't balanced! The problem here > is *nesting*. Due to the structure of our entry code and the core IRQ > code, when handling an IRQ we have a sequence: > > irq_enter() // arch code > irq_enter() // irq code > > < irq handler here > > > irq_exit() // irq code > irq_exit() // arch code > > ... and if we use something like rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() in the > middle (e.g. as part of rcu_sched_clock_irq()), this will not give the > expected result because of the additional nesting, since > rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() seems to expect that dynticks_nmi_nesting > is only incremented once per exception entry, when it does: > > /* Are we at first interrupt nesting level? */ > nesting = __this_cpu_read(rcu_data.dynticks_nmi_nesting); > if (nesting > 1) > return false; > > What I'm trying to figure out is whether that expectation is legitimate, > and assuming so, where the entry/exit should happen.
Oooh...
The penalty for fooling rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() is that RCU will be unable to detect a userspace quiescent state for a non-nohz_full CPU. That could result in RCU CPU stall warnings if a user task runs continuously on a given CPU for more than 21 seconds (60 seconds in some distros). And this can easily happen if the user has a CPU-bound thread that is the only runnable task on that CPU.
So, yes, this does need some sort of resolution.
The traditional approach is (as you surmise) to have only a single call to irq_enter() on exception entry and only a single call to irq_exit() on exception exit. If this is feasible, it is highly recommended.
In theory, we could have that "1" in "nesting > 1" be a constant supplied by the architecture (you would want "3" if I remember correctly) but in practice could we please avoid this? For one thing, if there is some other path into the kernel for your architecture that does only a single irq_enter(), then rcu_is_cpu_rrupt_from_idle() just doesn't stand a chance. It would need to compare against a different value depending on what exception showed up. Even if that cannot happen, it would be better if your architecture could remain in blissful ignorance of the colorful details of ->dynticks_nmi_nesting manipulations.
Another approach would be for the arch code to supply RCU a function that it calls. If there is such a function (or perhaps better, if some new Kconfig option is enabled), RCU invokes it. Otherwise, it compares to "1" as it does now. But you break it, you buy it! ;-)
Thoughts? Other approaches?
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks, > Mark. > > > But if you are doing some special-case exception where the handler needs > > to use RCU readers, but where the rest of the work is not needed, then > > the resulting calls to rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() must be in > > the architecture-specific code and must be properly balanced. > > > > So if exception entry invokes rcu_irq_enter() twice, then exception > > exit also needs to invoke rcu_irq_exit() twice. > > > > There are some constraints on where calls to these functions are place. > > For example, any exception-entry code prior to the call to rcu_irq_enter() > > must consist solely of functions marked noinstr, but Thomas can tell > > you more. > > > > Or am I missing the point of your question? > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > AFAICT, s390 will have a similar flow on its IRQ handling path, so if > > > this is a real issue they'll be affected too. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Mark. > > > > > > > Nmi also faces duplicate accounts. This series aims to address these > > > > duplicate issues. > > > > [1-2/5]: address nmi account duplicate > > > > [3-4/5]: address rcu housekeeping duplicate in irq > > > > [5/5]: as a natural result of [3-4/5], address a history issue. [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > History: > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > change the subject as the motivation varies. > > > > add the fix for nmi account duplicate > > > > > > > > The subject of v1 is "[PATCH 1/3] kernel/irq: __handle_domain_irq() > > > > makes irq_enter/exit arch optional". [2] It is brought up to fix [1]. > > > > > > > > There have been some tries to enable crash-stop-NMI on arm64, one by me, > > > > the other by Yuichi's [4]. I hope after this series, they can advance, > > > > as Marc said in [3] "No additional NMI patches will make it until we > > > > have resolved the issues" > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/87lfewnmdz.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/ > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1607912752-12481-1-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com > > > > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/afd82be798cb55fd2f96940db7be78c0@kernel.org > > > > [4] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20201104080539.3205889-1-ito-yuichi@fujitsu.com > > > > > > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > > > > Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> > > > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > > > Cc: Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com> > > > > Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com> > > > > Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> > > > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > > > Cc: Yuichi Ito <ito-yuichi@fujitsu.com> > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > > > > > > > > > > > Pingfan Liu (5): > > > > arm64/entry-common: push the judgement of nmi ahead > > > > irqchip/GICv3: expose handle_nmi() directly > > > > kernel/irq: make irq_{enter,exit}() in handle_domain_irq() arch > > > > optional > > > > irqchip/GICv3: let gic_handle_irq() utilize irqentry on arm64 > > > > irqchip/GICv3: make reschedule-ipi light weight > > > > > > > > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 + > > > > arch/arm64/include/asm/irq.h | 7 ++++ > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c | 45 +++++++++++++++------- > > > > arch/arm64/kernel/irq.c | 29 ++++++++++++++ > > > > drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > > > kernel/irq/Kconfig | 3 ++ > > > > kernel/irq/irqdesc.c | 4 ++ > > > > 7 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 2.31.1 > > > >
| |