On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:22 PM Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:05 PM Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 9:35 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 rcu_read_unlock_trace_special(), the premise of acquiring the rtpcp lock is that
> > before that, we have task switch in the rcu_read_lock_trace/unlock_trace critical section.
> > but after we already hold the rq lock, no task switch is generated in the
> > rcu_read_lock_trace/unlock_trace critical section.
> >
> > Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> >
> >Yes, but in the next reply I corrected myself and I am still concerned
> >about ABBA. There is obviously *some lock* that is held by the callers
> >of call_rcu_tasks*(). So there is a dependency that gets created
> >between _that_ lock and the rq lock, if you do a wakeup here. And I
> >am not sure whether that lock is also acquired when the BPF program
> >runs. If it is, then the BPF programs may hang. It is probably worth
> >checking with the BPF guys.
> >
> >More importantly, do you see a benefit with this change in terms of
> >anything more than deleting a few lines of code? Paul typically favors
> >robustness and guard rails (as do I), unless there is significant
> >benefit in performance, power or both.
>
> because I found that the purpose of using irq_work_queue() early is to solve the problem of lockep splat,
> my modified junior is also to avoid unnecessary IPI.
irq_work_queue() which this code uses does a self-IPI, unlike
irq_work_queue_on() which AFAIK is significantly cheaper on ARM64 than
cross-CPU IPIs. Not sure about x86 though.
Another way to avoid IPI sometimes is making the IRQ work lazy. It
will then do self-IPI only if the tick is turned off. But I'm not sure
if that is any better than leaving the code as-is.
> but like you said, indeed we are not completely sure
> whether there is a potential lock dependency problem, so I agree your opinion.
Ok and thanks for digging into it. This was fun!
- Joel
>
> Thanks
> Zqiang
>
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> > - Joel
