On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 11:00:05AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 2022, at 10:18 AM, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 06:25:04AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 28, 2022, at 11:54 PM, Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:34:28PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> >>>> Currently, invoke rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp() to wait one rude
> >>>> RCU-tasks grace period, if __num_online_cpus == 1, will return
> >>>> directly, indicates the end of the rude RCU-task grace period.
> >>>> suppose the system has two cpus, consider the following scenario:
> >>>>
> >>>> CPU0 CPU1 (going offline)
> >>>> migration/1 task:
> >>>> cpu_stopper_thread
> >>>> -> take_cpu_down
> >>>> -> _cpu_disable
> >>>> (dec __num_online_cpus)
> >>>> ->cpuhp_invoke_callback
> >>>> preempt_disable
> >>>> access old_data0
> >>>> task1
> >>>> del old_data0 .....
> >>>> synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude()
> >>>> task1 schedule out
> >>>> ....
> >>>> task2 schedule in
> >>>> rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
> >>>> ->__num_online_cpus == 1
> >>>> ->return
> >>>> ....
> >>>> task1 schedule in
> >>>> ->free old_data0
> >>>> preempt_enable
> >>>>
> >>>> when CPU1 dec __num_online_cpus and __num_online_cpus is equal one,
> >>>> the CPU1 has not finished offline, stop_machine task(migration/1)
> >>>> still running on CPU1, maybe still accessing 'old_data0', but the
> >>>> 'old_data0' has freed on CPU0.
> >>>>
> >>>> This commit add cpus_read_lock/unlock() protection before accessing
> >>>> __num_online_cpus variables, to ensure that the CPU in the offline
> >>>> process has been completed offline.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> First, good eyes and good catch!!!
> >>>>
> >>>> The purpose of that check for num_online_cpus() is not performance
> >>>> on single-CPU systems, but rather correct operation during early boot.
> >>>> So a simpler way to make that work is to check for RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING,
> >>>> for example, as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>> if (rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
> >>>> num_online_cpus() <= 1)
> >>>> return; // Early boot fastpath for only one CPU.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Paul
> >>>
> >>> During system startup, because the RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING is set after starting other CPUs,
> >>>
> >>> CPU0 CPU1
> >>>
> >>> if (rcu_scheduler_active !=
> >>> RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
> >>> __num_online_cpus == 1)
> >>> return; inc __num_online_cpus
> >>> (__num_online_cpus == 2)
> >>>
> >>> CPU0 didn't notice the update of the __num_online_cpus variable by CPU1 in time
> >>> Can we move rcu_set_runtime_mode() before smp_init()
> >>> any thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Is anyone expected to do rcu-tasks operation before the scheduler is running?
> >>
> >> Not sure if such a scenario exists.
> >>
> >>> Typically this requires the tasks to context switch which is a scheduler operation.
> >>>
> >>> If the scheduler is not yet running, then I don’t think missing an update the __num_online_cpus matters since no one does a tasks-RCU synchronize.
> >>
> >> Hi Joel
> >>
> >> After the kernel_init task runs, before calling smp_init() to starting other CPUs,
> >> the scheduler haven been initialization, task context switching can occur.
> >
> > Good catch, thank you both. For some reason, I was thinking that the
> > additional CPUs did not come online until later.
> >
> > So how about this?
> >
> > if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE)
> > return; // Early boot fastpath.
> >
> > If this condition is true, there is only one CPU and no scheduler,
> > thus no preemption.
>
> Agreed. I was going to suggest exactly this :)
>
> Ack.
> (Replying by phone but feel free to add my reviewed by tag).
I should add that the downside of this approach is that there is a short
time between the scheduler initializing and workqueues fully initializing
where a critical-path call to synchronize_rcu_tasks() will hang the
system. I do -not- consider this to be a real problem because RCU had
some hundreds of calls to synchronize_rcu() before this became an issue.
So this should be fine, but please recall this for when/if someone does
stick a synchronize_rcu_tasks() into that short time. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> - Joel
>
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> >> Thanks
> >> Zqiang
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Or did I miss something?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Zqiang
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This works because rcu_scheduler_active is set to RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING
> >>>> long before it is possible to offline CPUs.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, schedule_on_each_cpu() does do cpus_read_lock(), again, good eyes,
> >>>> and it also unnecessarily does the schedule_work_on() the current CPU,
> >>>> but the code calling synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() is on high-overhead
> >>>> code paths, so this overhead is down in the noise.
> >>>>
> >>>> Until further notice, anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> So simplicity is much more important than performance in this code.
> >>>> So just adding the check for RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING should fix this,
> >>>> unless I am missing something (always possible!).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanx, Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >>>> index 4a991311be9b..08e72c6462d8 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> >>>> @@ -1033,14 +1033,30 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> >>>> {
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work);
> >>>> +
> >>>> // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
> >>>> static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> >>>> {
> >>>> + int cpu;
> >>>> + struct work_struct *work;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + cpus_read_lock();
> >>>> if (num_online_cpus() <= 1)
> >>>> - return; // Fastpath for only one CPU.
> >>>> + goto end;// Fastpath for only one CPU.
> >>>>
> >>>> rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> >>>> - schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> >>>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> >>>> + work = per_cpu_ptr(&rude_work, cpu);
> >>>> + INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> >>>> + schedule_work_on(cpu, work);
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> >>>> + flush_work(per_cpu_ptr(&rude_work, cpu));
> >>>> +
> >>>> +end:
> >>>> + cpus_read_unlock();
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.25.1
> >>>>
