On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:31:38PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 01:36:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:17:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 11:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:38PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the fix should be to prevent the wake-up not based on whether we
> > > > > are
> > > > > in hard/soft-interrupt mode but that we are doing the rcu_read_unlock()
> > > > > from
> > > > > a scheduler path (if we can detect that)
> > > >
> > > > Or just don't do the wakeup at all, if it comes to that. I don't know
> > > > of any way to determine whether rcu_read_unlock() is being called from
> > > > the scheduler, but it has been some time since I asked Peter Zijlstra
> > > > about that.
> > > >
> > > > Of course, unconditionally refusing to do the wakeup might not be happy
> > > > thing for NO_HZ_FULL kernels that don't implement IRQ work.
> > >
> > > Couldn't smp_send_reschedule() be used instead?
> >
> > Good point. If current -rcu doesn't fix things for Sebastian's case,
> > that would be well worth looking at. But there must be some reason
> > why Peter Zijlstra didn't suggest it when he instead suggested using
> > the IRQ work approach.
> >
> > Peter, thoughts?
>
+cc kernel-team@xxxxxxx
(I'm sorry for more noise on the thread.)
> Hello,
>
> Isn't the following scenario possible?
>
> The original code
> -----------------
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> /* Experdite */
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> ...
> __rcu_read_unlock();
> if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
>
> The reordered code by machine
> -----------------------------
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> /* Experdite */
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> ...
> __rcu_read_unlock();
> if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; <--- LOOK AT THIS!!!
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
>
> An interrupt happens
> --------------------
> rcu_read_lock();
> ...
> /* Experdite */
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true);
> ...
> __rcu_read_unlock();
> if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; <--- LOOK AT THIS!!!
> <--- Handle an (any) irq
> rcu_read_lock();
> /* This call should be skipped */
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false);
> rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
>
> We don't have to handle the special thing twice like this which is one
> reason to cause the problem even though another problem is of course to
> call ttwu w/o being aware it's within a context holding pi lock.
>
> Apart from the discussion about how to avoid ttwu in an improper
> condition, I think the following is necessary. I may have something
> missing. It would be appreciated if you let me know in case I'm wrong.
>
> Anyway, logically I think we should prevent reordering between
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting and t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint not
> only by compiler but also by machine like the below.
>
> Do I miss something?
>
> Thanks,
> Byungchul
>
> ---8<---
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index 3c8444e..9b137f1 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -412,7 +412,13 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> barrier(); /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */
> if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)))
> rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> - barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */
> + /*
> + * Prevent reordering between clearing
> + * t->rcu_reak_unlock_special in
> + * rcu_read_unlock_special() and the following
> + * assignment to t->rcu_read_lock_nesting.
> + */
> + smp_wmb();
> t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0;
> }
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
>
>
