On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:50:33AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:58:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 03:38:46PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> > > This is more of a problem description than an actual bugfix, but currently
> > > ring_buffer_detach() can kick in while ring_buffer_wakeup() is traversing
> > > the ring buffer's event list, leading to cpu stalls.
> > >
> > > What this patch does is crude, but fixes the problem, which is: one rcu
> > > grace period has to elapse between ring_buffer_detach() and subsequent
> > > ring_buffer_attach(), otherwise either the attach will fail or the wakeup
> > > will misbehave. Also, making it a call_rcu() callback will make it race
> > > with attach().
> > >
> > > Another solution that I see is to check for list_empty(&event->rb_entry)
> > > before wake_up_all() in ring_buffer_wakeup() and restart the list
> > > traversal if it is indeed empty, but that is ugly too as there will be
> > > extra wakeups on some events.
> > >
> > > Anything that I'm missing here? Any better ideas?
> >
> > Not sure it qualifies as "better", but git call to ring_buffer_detach()
> > is going to free the event anyway, so the synchronize_rcu() and the
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD() should not be needed in that case. I am guessing that
> > the same is true for perf_mmap_close().
> >
> > So that leaves the call in perf_event_set_output(), which detaches from an
> > old rb before attaching that same event to a new one. So maybe have the
> > synchronize_rcu() and INIT_LIST_HEAD() instead be in the "if (old_rb)",
> > which might be a reasonably uncommon case?
>
> How about something like so that only does the sync_rcu() if really
> needed.
This general idea can be made to work, but it will need some
internal-to-RCU help. One vulnerability of the patch below is the
following sequence of steps:
1. RCU has just finished a grace period, and is doing the
end-of-grace-period accounting.
2. The code below invokes rcu_batches_completed(). Let's assume
the result returned is 42.
3. RCU completes the end-of-grace-period accounting, and increments
rcu_sched_state.completed.
4. The code below checks ->rcu_batches against the result from
another invocation of rcu_batches_completed() and sees that
the 43 is not equal to 42, so skips the synchronize_rcu().
Except that a grace period has not actually completed. Boom!!!
The problem is that rcu_batches_completed() is only intended to give
progress information on RCU.
What I can do is give you a pair of functions, one to take a snapshot of
the current grace-period state (returning an unsigned long) and another
to evaluate a previous snapshot, invoking synchronize_rcu() if there has
not been a full grace period in the meantime.
The most straightforward approach would invoke acquiring the global
rcu_state ->lock on each call, which I am guessing just might be
considered to be excessive overhead. ;-) I should be able to decrease
the overhead to a memory barrier on each call, and perhaps even down
to an smp_load_acquire(). Accessing the RCU state probably costs you
a cache miss both times.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 11 +++++++++--
> kernel/events/internal.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 661951ab8ae7..88c8c810e081 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -3856,12 +3856,17 @@ static void ring_buffer_attach(struct perf_event
> *event,
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + if (rb->rcu_batches == rcu_batches_completed()) {
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&event->rb_entry);
> + }
> +
> if (!list_empty(&event->rb_entry))
> return;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> if (list_empty(&event->rb_entry))
> - list_add(&event->rb_entry, &rb->event_list);
> + list_add_rcu(&event->rb_entry, &rb->event_list);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> }
>
> @@ -3873,9 +3878,11 @@ static void ring_buffer_detach(struct perf_event
> *event, struct ring_buffer *rb)
> return;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> - list_del_init(&event->rb_entry);
> + list_del_rcu(&event->rb_entry);
> wake_up_all(&event->waitq);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> +
> + rb->rcu_batches = rcu_batches_completed();
> }
>
> static void ring_buffer_wakeup(struct perf_event *event)
> diff --git a/kernel/events/internal.h b/kernel/events/internal.h
> index 569b218782ad..698b5881b2a4 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/internal.h
> +++ b/kernel/events/internal.h
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ struct ring_buffer {
> /* poll crap */
> spinlock_t event_lock;
> struct list_head event_list;
> + unsigned long rcu_batches;
>
> atomic_t mmap_count;
> unsigned long mmap_locked;
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
