On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 07:29:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:46:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:41:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > > > Also, your commit log's point #2 is "in_irq() implies in_interrupt()
> > > > > > which implies raising softirq will not do any wake ups." This
> > > > > > mention
> > > > > > of softirq seems a bit odd, given that we are going to wake up a
> > > > > > rcuc
> > > > > > kthread. Of course, this did nothing to quell my suspicions. ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I should delete this #2 from the changelog since it is not very
> > > > > relevant
> > > > > (I feel now). My point with #2 was that even if were to raise a
> > > > > softirq
> > > > > (which we are not), a scheduler wakeup of ksoftirqd is impossible in
> > > > > this
> > > > > path anyway since in_irq() implies in_interrupt().
> > > >
> > > > Please! Could you also add a first-principles explanation of why
> > > > the added condition is immune from scheduler deadlocks?
> > >
> > > Sure I can add an example in the change log, however I was thinking of
> > > this
> > > example which you mentioned:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190627173831.gw26...@linux.ibm.com/
> > >
> > > previous_reader()
> > > {
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > do_something(); /* Preemption happened here. */
> > > local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > do_something_else();
> > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > do_some_other_thing();
> > > local_irq_enable();
> > > }
> > >
> > > current_reader() /* QS from previous_reader() is still deferred. */
> > > {
> > > local_irq_disable(); /* Might be the scheduler. */
> > > do_whatever();
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > do_whatever_else();
> > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must still defer reporting QS. */
> > > do_whatever_comes_to_mind();
> > > local_irq_enable();
> > > }
> > >
> > > One modification of the example could be, previous_reader() could also do:
> > > previous_reader()
> > > {
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > do_something_that_takes_really_long(); /* causes need_qs in
> > > the
> > > unlock_special_union to be set */
> > > local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > do_something_else();
> > > rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > do_some_other_thing();
> > > local_irq_enable();
> > > }
> >
> > The point you were making in that thread being, current_reader() ->
> > rcu_read_unlock() -> rcu_read_unlock_special() would not do any wakeups
> > because previous_reader() sets the deferred_qs bit.
> >
> > Anyway, I will add all of this into the changelog.
>
> Examples are good, but what makes it so that there are no examples of
> its being unsafe?
>
> And a few questions along the way, some quick quiz, some more serious.
> Would it be safe if it checked in_interrupt() instead of in_irq()?
> If not, should the in_interrupt() in the "if" condition preceding the
> added "else if" be changed to in_irq()? Would it make sense to add an
> "|| !irqs_were_disabled" do your new "else if" condition? Would the
> body of the "else if" actually be executed in current mainline?
>
> In an attempt to be at least a little constructive, I am doing some
> testing of this patch overnight, along with a WARN_ON_ONCE() to see if
> that invoke_rcu_core() is ever reached.
And that WARN_ON_ONCE() never triggered in two-hour rcutorture runs of
TREE01, TREE02, TREE03, and TREE09. (These are the TREE variants in
CFLIST that have CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.)
This of course raises other questions. But first, do you see that code
executing in your testing?
Thanx, Paul
