On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 9:25 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 12:36:05AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 08:43:05AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > > > From: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 2:30 PM
> > > > To: paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx; frederic@xxxxxxxxxx; quic_neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Cc: rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] rcu-tasks: Directly invoke rcuwait_wake_up() in
> > > > call_rcu_tasks_generic()
> > > >
> > > > According to commit '3063b33a347c ("Avoid raw-spinlocked wakeups from
> > > > call_rcu_tasks_generic()")', the grace-period kthread is delayed to wakeup
> > > > using irq_work_queue() is because if the caller of
> > > > call_rcu_tasks_generic() holds a raw spinlock, when the kernel is built with
> > > > CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y, due to a spinlock will be hold in
> > > > wake_up(), so the lockdep splats will happen. but now using
> > > > rcuwait_wake_up() to wakeup grace-period kthread instead of wake_up(), in
> > > > rcuwait_wake_up() no spinlock will be acquired, so this commit remove using
> > > >
> > > >There are still spinlock-acquisition and spinlock-release invocations within the call path from rcuwait_wake_up().
> > > >
> > > >rcuwait_wake_up() -> wake_up_process() -> try_to_wake_up(), then:
> > > >
> > > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave()
> > > > ...
> > > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
> > >
> > > Yes, but this is raw_spinlock acquisition and release(note: spinlock will convert to
> > > sleepable lock in Preempt-RT kernel, but raw spinlock is not change).
> > >
> > > acquire raw_spinlock -> acquire spinlock will trigger lockdep warning.
> > >
> > >Is this really safe in the long run though? I seem to remember there are
> > >weird locking dependencies if RCU is used from within the scheduler [1].
> > >
> >
> >
> > I have been running rcutorture with rcutorture.type = tasks-tracing,
> > so far no problems have been found.
> >
> >
> > >I prefer to keep it as irq_work_queue() unless you are seeing some benefit.
> > >Generally, there has to be a 'win' or other justification for adding more
> > >risk.
> > >
> > >thanks,
> > >
> > >- Joel
> > >[1] http://www.joelfernandes.org/rcu/scheduler/locking/2019/09/02/rcu-schedlocks.html
> >
> >
> > The problem in this link, in an earlier RCU version, rcu_read_unlock_special()
> > Invoke wakeup and enter scheduler can lead to deadlock, but my modification is for
> > call_rcu_tasks_generic(), even if there is a lock dependency problem, we should pay
> > more attention to rcu_read_unlock_trace_special()
>
> Consider ABBA deadlocks as well, not just self-deadlocks (which IIRC is what
> the straight-RCU rcu_read_unlock() issues were about).
>
> What prevents the following scenario?
>
> In the scheduler you have code like this:
> rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> trace_sched_wait_task(p);
>
> Someone can hook up a BPF program to that tracepoint that then calls
> rcu_read_unlock_trace() -> rcu_read_unlock_trace_special(). All of
> this while holding the rq and pi scheduler locks.
>
> That's A (rq lock) -> B (rtpcp lock).
>
> In another path, your change adds the following dependency due to doing
> wakeup under the rtpcp lock.
>
> That's call_rcu_tasks_generic() -> B (rtpcp lock) -> A (rq lock).
I would like to correct this last statement. That cannot happen but
the concern I guess is, can the following happen due to the change?
call_rcu_tasks_generic() -> B (some BPF lock) -> A (rq lock)
So by doing a wakeup in this change, you have added the dependency for
callers of call_rcu_tasks_trace() . Now, the BPF program is called
from the trace point above and you have ABBA deadlock possibility.
- Joel
