On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 04:30:06PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:54:29PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 08:30:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Like sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(), but this function assumes the
> > > > caller
> > > > + * doesn't hold the rcu_node's ->lock, and will acquire and release
> > > > the lock
> > > > + * itself
> > > > + */
> > > > +static bool sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done_unlocked(struct rcu_node *rnp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > + bool ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > > + ret = sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp);
> > >
> > > Let's see... The sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done() function checks the
> > > ->exp_tasks pointer and the ->expmask bitmask. The number of bits in the
> > > mask can only decrease, and the ->exp_tasks pointer can only transition
> > > from NULL to non-NULL when there is at least one bit set. However,
> > > there is no ordering in sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(), so it is possible
> > > that it could be fooled without the lock:
> > >
> > > o CPU 0 in sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done() reads ->exp_tasks and
> > > sees that it is NULL.
> > >
> > > o CPU 1 blocks within an RCU read-side critical section, so
> > > it enqueues the task and points ->exp_tasks at it and
> > > clears CPU 1's bit in ->expmask.
> > >
> > > o All other CPUs clear their bits in ->expmask.
> > >
> > > o CPU 0 reads ->expmask, sees that it is zero, so incorrectly
> > > concludes that all quiescent states have completed, despite
> > > the fact that ->exp_tasks is non-NULL.
> > >
> > > So it seems to me that the lock is needed. Good catch!!! The problem
> > > would occur only if the task running on CPU 0 received a spurious
> > > wakeup, but that could potentially happen.
> >
> > Thanks for the analysis ;-)
The other limitation is that it occurs only on systems small enough
to have a single-node rcu_node tree. But still...
> > > If lock contention becomes a problem, memory-ordering tricks could be
> > > applied, but the lock is of course simpler.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > I am guessing that this is a prototype patch, and that you are planning
> >
> > Yes, this is a prototype. And I'm preparing a proper patch to send
> > later.
Very good, thank you!
> > > to add lockdep annotations in more places, but either way please let
> > > me know.
> >
> > Give it's a bug as per your analysis, I'd like to defer other lockdep
> > annotations and send this first. However, I'm currently getting other
> > lockdep splats after applying this, so I need to get that sorted first.
>
> Hmm.. the other lockdep splat seems irrelevant with my patch, I could
> observe it on mainline using rcutorture with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y. I'd
> spend some more time on it, in the meanwhile, send a proper patch for
> this sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done().
I am not seeing that one, but am very interested in getting it fixed! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> > Regards,
> > Boqun
> >
> > > Thanx, Paul
> > >
> > > > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * Report the exit from RCU read-side critical section for the last
> > > > task
> > > > * that queued itself during or before the current expedited
> > > > preemptible-RCU
> > > > @@ -490,6 +512,7 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct
> > > > rcu_state *rsp)
> > > > struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > > > struct rcu_node *rnp_root = rcu_get_root(rsp);
> > > > int ret;
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > >
> > > > trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rsp->name,
> > > > rcu_exp_gp_seq_endval(rsp), TPS("startwait"));
> > > > jiffies_stall = rcu_jiffies_till_stall_check();
> > > > @@ -498,9 +521,9 @@ static void synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct
> > > > rcu_state *rsp)
> > > > for (;;) {
> > > > ret = swait_event_timeout(
> > > > rsp->expedited_wq,
> > > > - sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp_root),
> > > > +
> > > > sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done_unlocked(rnp_root),
> > > > jiffies_stall);
> > > > - if (ret > 0 || sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp_root))
> > > > + if (ret > 0 ||
> > > > sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done_unlocked(rnp_root))
> > > > return;
> > > > WARN_ON(ret < 0); /* workqueues should not be
> > > > signaled. */
> > > > if (rcu_cpu_stall_suppress)
> > > > @@ -533,8 +556,14 @@ static void
> > > > synchronize_sched_expedited_wait(struct rcu_state *rsp)
> > > > rcu_for_each_node_breadth_first(rsp, rnp) {
> > > > if (rnp == rnp_root)
> > > > continue; /* printed
> > > > unconditionally */
> > > > - if (sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp))
> > > > +
> > > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp,
> > > > flags);
> > > > + if (sync_rcu_preempt_exp_done(rnp)) {
> > > > +
> > > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > > continue;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > pr_cont(" l=%u:%d-%d:%#lx/%c",
> > > > rnp->level, rnp->grplo,
> > > > rnp->grphi,
> > > > rnp->expmask,
> > > > --
> > > > 2.16.2
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
