On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:04:23AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> On 11/22/2020 11:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 07:57:26PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > On 11/21/2020 5:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 05:28:32PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > >
> > > > > On 11/17/2020 6:10 AM, paul...@kernel.org wrote:
> > > > > > From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@kernel.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is a need for a polling interface for SRCU grace
> > > > > > periods, so this commit supplies get_state_synchronize_srcu(),
> > > > > > start_poll_synchronize_srcu(), and poll_state_synchronize_srcu()
> > > > > > for this
> > > > > > purpose. The first can be used if future grace periods are
> > > > > > inevitable
> > > > > > (perhaps due to a later call_srcu() invocation), the second if
> > > > > > future
> > > > > > grace periods might not otherwise happen, and the third to check if
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > grace period has elapsed since the corresponding call to either of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > first two.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As with get_state_synchronize_rcu() and cond_synchronize_rcu(),
> > > > > > the return value from either get_state_synchronize_srcu() or
> > > > > > start_poll_synchronize_srcu() must be passed in to a later call to
> > > > > > poll_state_synchronize_srcu().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Link:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/20201112201547.gf3365...@moria.home.lan/
> > > > > > Reported-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstr...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > [ paulmck: Add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() per kernel test robot feedback. ]
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > include/linux/srcu.h | 3 +++
> > > > > > include/linux/srcutiny.h | 1 +
> > > > > > kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c | 52
> > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > > > 4 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > > index de08264..e09c0d8 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > > > > > @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
> > > > > > #define ULONG_CMP_GE(a, b) (ULONG_MAX / 2 >= (a) - (b))
> > > > > > #define ULONG_CMP_LT(a, b) (ULONG_MAX / 2 < (a) - (b))
> > > > > > #define ulong2long(a) (*(long *)(&(a)))
> > > > > > +#define USHORT_CMP_GE(a, b) (USHRT_MAX / 2 >= (unsigned
> > > > > > short)((a) - (b)))
> > > > > > +#define USHORT_CMP_LT(a, b) (USHRT_MAX / 2 < (unsigned
> > > > > > short)((a) - (b)))
> > > > > > /* Exported common interfaces */
> > > > > > void call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/srcu.h b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > > > > index e432cc9..a0895bb 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/srcu.h
> > > > > > @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ void cleanup_srcu_struct(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
> > > > > > int __srcu_read_lock(struct srcu_struct *ssp) __acquires(ssp);
> > > > > > void __srcu_read_unlock(struct srcu_struct *ssp, int idx)
> > > > > > __releases(ssp);
> > > > > > void synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
> > > > > > +unsigned long get_state_synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
> > > > > > +unsigned long start_poll_synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp);
> > > > > > +bool poll_state_synchronize_srcu(struct srcu_struct *ssp, unsigned
> > > > > > long cookie);
> > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/srcutiny.h b/include/linux/srcutiny.h
> > > > > > index fed4a2d..e9bd6fb 100644
> > > > > > --- a/include/linux/srcutiny.h
> > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/srcutiny.h
> > > > > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> > > > > > struct srcu_struct {
> > > > > > short srcu_lock_nesting[2]; /* srcu_read_lock()
> > > > > > nesting depth. */
> > > > > > unsigned short srcu_idx; /* Current reader array
> > > > > > element in bit 0x2. */
> > > > > > + unsigned short srcu_idx_max; /* Furthest future srcu_idx
> > > > > > request. */
> > > > > > u8 srcu_gp_running; /* GP workqueue
> > > > > > running? */
> > > > > > u8 srcu_gp_waiting; /* GP waiting for
> > > > > > readers? */
> > > > > > struct swait_queue_head srcu_wq;
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > > > > index 3bac1db..b405811 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/srcutiny.c
> > > > > > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static int init_srcu_struct_fields(struct
> > > > > > srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > > > > ssp->srcu_gp_running = false;
> > > > > > ssp->srcu_gp_waiting = false;
> > > > > > ssp->srcu_idx = 0;
> > > > > > + ssp->srcu_idx_max = 0;
> > > > > > INIT_WORK(&ssp->srcu_work, srcu_drive_gp);
> > > > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ssp->srcu_work.entry);
> > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > @@ -114,7 +115,7 @@ void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
> > > > > > struct srcu_struct *ssp;
> > > > > > ssp = container_of(wp, struct srcu_struct, srcu_work);
> > > > > > - if (ssp->srcu_gp_running || !READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_cb_head))
> > > > > > + if (ssp->srcu_gp_running || USHORT_CMP_GE(ssp->srcu_idx,
> > > > > > READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
> > > > > > return; /* Already running or nothing to do. */
> > > > > > /* Remove recently arrived callbacks and wait for
> > > > > > readers. */
> > > > > > @@ -147,14 +148,19 @@ void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp)
> > > > > > * straighten that out.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running, false);
> > > > > > - if (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_cb_head))
> > > > > > + if (USHORT_CMP_GE(ssp->srcu_idx, READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
> > > > >
> > > > > Should this be USHORT_CMP_LT ?
> > > >
> > > > I believe that you are correct. As is, it works but does needless
> > > > grace periods.
> > > >
> > > > > > schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(srcu_drive_gp);
> > > > > > static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > + unsigned short cookie;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) {
> > > > > > + cookie = get_state_synchronize_srcu(ssp);
> > > > > > + if (USHORT_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max), cookie))
> > > > > > + WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max, cookie);
> > > > >
> > > > > I was thinking of a case which might break with this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Consider a scenario, where GP is in progress and kworker is right
> > > > > before below point, after executing callbacks:
> > > > >
> > > > > void srcu_drive_gp(struct work_struct *wp) {
> > > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > We updated ->srcu_idx up here, correct? So it has bottom bit zero.
> > > >
> > > > > while (lh) {
> > > > > <cb execution loop>
> > > > > }
> > > > > >>> CURRENT EXECUTION POINT
> > > >
> > > > Keeping in mind that Tiny SRCU always runs !PREEMPT, this must be
> > > > due to an interrupt.
> > > >
> > > Looking more, issue can happen, even when kworker is waiting for GP
> > > completion @
> > >
> > > swait_event_exclusive(ssp->srcu_wq,
> > > !READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_lock_nesting[idx]));
> > >
> > > Other process can call call_srcu() and skip srcu_idx_max update, as
> > > ssp->srcu_gp_running is true.
> >
> > Good point! Does this mean that additional changes are required,
> > or does the fix below cover this situation as well?
>
> I think the current fix covers this. Just wanted to higlight that
> the window is not small and a rcutorture test case might be able to uncover
> the issue?
Thus far no luck, though. I am considering that this might be another
rcutorture bug. :-/
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks
> Neeraj
>
> > > Thanks
> > > Neeraj
> > >
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running, false);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (USHORT_CMP_LT(ssp->srcu_idx, READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
> > > > > schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, at this instance, srcu_gp_start_if_needed() runs and samples
> > > > > srcu_gp_running and returns, without updating srcu_idx_max
> > > > >
> > > > > static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > > > {
> > > > > if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) returns true
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > This could happen in an interrupt handler, so with you thus far.
> > > >
> > > > > kworker running srcu_drive_gp() resumes and returns without queueing
> > > > > a new
> > > > > schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work); for new GP?
> > > > >
> > > > > Prior to this patch, call_srcu() enqueues a cb before entering
> > > > > srcu_gp_start_if_needed(), and srcu_drive_gp() observes this
> > > > > queuing, and schedule a work for the new GP, for this scenario.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running, false);
> > > > > - if (READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_cb_head))
> > > > > + if (USHORT_CMP_GE(ssp->srcu_idx, READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max)))
> > > > > schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
> > > > >
> > > > > So, should the "cookie" calculation and "srcu_idx_max" setting be
> > > > > moved
> > > > > outside of ssp->srcu_gp_running check and maybe return the same
> > > > > cookie to
> > > > > caller and use that as the returned cookie from
> > > > > start_poll_synchronize_srcu() ?
> > > > >
> > > > > srcu_gp_start_if_needed()
> > > > > cookie = get_state_synchronize_srcu(ssp);
> > > > > if (USHORT_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max), cookie))
> > > > > WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max, cookie);
> > > > > if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) {
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I believe that you are quite correct, thank you!
> > > >
> > > > But rcutorture does have a call_srcu() (really a ->call, but same if
> > > > SRCU)
> > > > in a timer handler. The race window is quite narrow, so testing it
> > > > might
> > > > be a challenge...
> > > >
> > > > This is what I end up with:
> > > >
> > > > static void srcu_gp_start_if_needed(struct srcu_struct *ssp)
> > > > {
> > > > unsigned short cookie;
> > > >
> > > > cookie = get_state_synchronize_srcu(ssp);
> > > > if (USHORT_CMP_LT(READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max), cookie))
> > > > WRITE_ONCE(ssp->srcu_idx_max, cookie);
> > > > if (!READ_ONCE(ssp->srcu_gp_running)) {
> > > > if (likely(srcu_init_done))
> > > > schedule_work(&ssp->srcu_work);
> > > > else if (list_empty(&ssp->srcu_work.entry))
> > > > list_add(&ssp->srcu_work.entry,
> > > > &srcu_boot_list);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Does that look plausible?
> > >
> > > Looks good.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> > > of
> > > the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
>
> --
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of
> the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
