Le Thu, Mar 05, 2026 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 03:45:58PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Mar 2026 11:04:04 +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> >
> > > * The latch is cleared only when the pending requests are fully
> > > drained(nr == 0);
> >
> > > +static void rcu_sr_normal_add_req(struct rcu_synchronize *rs)
> > > +{
> > > + long nr;
> > > +
> > > + llist_add((struct llist_node *) &rs->head, &rcu_state.srs_next);
> > > + nr = atomic_long_inc_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
> > > +
> > > + /* Latch: only when flooded and if unlatched. */
> > > + if (nr >= RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR)
> > > + (void)atomic_cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 0, 1);
> > > +}
> >
> > I think there is a stuck-latch race here. Once llist_add() places the
> > entry in srs_next, the GP kthread can pick it up and fire
> > rcu_sr_normal_complete() before the latching cmpxchg runs. If the last
> > in-flight completion drains count to zero in that window, the unlatch
> > cmpxchg(latched, 1, 0) fails (latched is still 0 at that moment), and
> > then the latching cmpxchg(latched, 0, 1) fires anyway — with count=0:
> >
> > CPU 0 (add_req, count just hit 64) GP kthread
> > ---------------------------------- ----------
> > llist_add() <-- entry now in srs_next
> > inc_return() --> nr = 64
> > [preempted]
> > rcu_sr_normal_complete() x64:
> > dec_return -> count: 64..1..0
> > count==0:
> > cmpxchg(latched, 1, 0)
> > --> FAILS (latched still 0)
> > [resumes]
> > cmpxchg(latched, 0, 1) --> latched = 1
> >
> > Final state: count=0, latched=1 --> STUCK LATCH
> >
> > All subsequent synchronize_rcu() callers see latched==1 and take the
> > fallback path (not counted). With no new SR-normal callers,
> > rcu_sr_normal_complete() is never reached again, so the unlatch
> > cmpxchg(latched, 1, 0) never fires. The latch is permanently stuck.
> >
> > This requires preemption for a full GP duration between llist_add() and
> > the cmpxchg, which is probably more likely on PREEMPT_RT or heavily loaded
> > systems.
> >
> > The fix: move the cmpxchg *before* llist_add(), so the entry is not
> > visible to the GP kthread until after the latch is already set.
> >
> > That should fix it, thoughts?
> >
> Yes and thank you!
>
> We can improve it even more by removing atomic_cmpxchg() in
> the rcu_sr_normal_add_req() function, because only one context
> sees the (nr == RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR) condition:
>
> <snip>
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 86dc88a70fd0..72b340940e11 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -1640,7 +1640,7 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *sync_wq;
>
> /* Number of in-flight synchronize_rcu() calls queued on srs_next. */
> static atomic_long_t rcu_sr_normal_count;
> -static atomic_t rcu_sr_normal_latched;
> +static int rcu_sr_normal_latched; /* 0/1 */
>
> static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node *node)
> {
> @@ -1662,7 +1662,7 @@ static void rcu_sr_normal_complete(struct llist_node
> *node)
> * drained and if it has been latched.
> */
> if (nr == 0)
> - (void)atomic_cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 1, 0);
> + (void)cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 1, 0);
> }
>
> static void rcu_sr_normal_gp_cleanup_work(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -1808,14 +1808,22 @@ static bool rcu_sr_normal_gp_init(void)
>
> static void rcu_sr_normal_add_req(struct rcu_synchronize *rs)
> {
> - long nr;
> + /*
> + * Increment before publish to avoid a complete
> + * vs enqueue race on latch.
> + */
> + long nr = atomic_long_inc_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
>
> - llist_add((struct llist_node *) &rs->head, &rcu_state.srs_next);
> - nr = atomic_long_inc_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
> + /*
> + * Latch on threshold crossing. (nr == RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR)
> + * can be true only for one context, avoiding contention on the
> + * write path.
> + */
> + if (nr == RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR)
> + WRITE_ONCE(rcu_sr_normal_latched, 1);
Isn't it still racy?
rcu_sr_normal_add_req rcu_sr_normal_complete
--------------------- ----------------------
nr =
atomic_long_dec_return(&rcu_sr_normal_count);
// nr == 0
======= PREEMPTION
=======
// 64 tasks doing synchronize_rcu()
rcu_sr_normal_add_req()
WRITE_ONCE(rcu_sr_normal_latched, 1);
cmpxchg(&rcu_sr_normal_latched, 1, 0);
Also more generally there is nothing that orders the WRITE_ONCE() with the
cmpxchg.
Is it possible to remove rcu_sr_normal_latched and simply deal with comparisons
between rcu_sr_normal_count and RCU_SR_NORMAL_LATCH_THR?
Thanks.
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
