Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 11:43 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > You don't want to run rpi_pop() after the bulk of xnpod_delete_thread() > > Not after, I meant before. But then... > > > has run for the same thread, and you don't want a preemption to occur > > anytime between the thread deletion and the update of the RPI state that > > still refers to it. You might try moving the call to rpi_pop() to the > > prologue of both routines instead of waiting for the deletion hook to do > > it, but this would introduce a priority issue in the do_taskexit_event > > callout, since we might have lowered the root priority in rpi_pop() and > > be switched out in the middle of the deletion process. Unless we hold > > the nklock all time long, that is. Back to square #1, I'm afraid. > > ...there might be other issues, OK. > > So we might need some reference counter for the xnthread object so that > the last user actually frees it and some flags to check what jobs remain > to be done for cleanup. > > > latency hit is certainly not seen there; the real issues are left in the > > native and POSIX skin thread deletion routines (heap management and > > other housekeeping calls under nklock and so on). > That's surely true. Besides RPI manipulation, there is really no > problematic code left here latency-wise. Other hooks are trickier. But > my point is that we first need some infrastructure to provide an > alternative cleanup context before we can start moving things. My patch > today is a hack...err...workaround from this perspective. > > >>> I don't see it this way. This code is very specific, in the sense it > >>> lays on the inter-domain boundary between Linux and Xenomai's primary > >>> mode for a critical operation like thread deletion, this is what make > >>> things a bit confusing. What's below and above this layer has to be as > >>> seamless as possible, this code in particular can't. > >> Well, we could move the memory release of the shadow thread in Linux > >> context e.g. (release on idle, a bit like RCU - uuuh). > > > > This is basically what Gilles did in a recent patch to fix some treading > > on freed memory, by releasing the shadow TCB through > > xnheap_schedule_free(). I think we should have a look at the removal > > from registry operations now. > > Look, we now have xnheap_schedule_free, Actually, we had this for the last two years now, it just happened to be underused. > next we a need kind of > xnregistery_schedule_free > - that's my point, provide a generic platform > for all these things. More may follow (for new kind of skins eg.). > Yes, what we need is a common policy for object creation and deletion, that properly uses the APC mechanism. The logic behind this being that any object creation which involves secondary domain work to set them up - such as threads, heaps, queues, pipes - will invariably require the deletion process to follow the converse path, i.e. rely on Linux kernel services. So far, this has been achieved by setting the lostage bit in the syscall exec mode, but this has two drawbacks: 1) kernel-based threads take no advantage of this since they don't go through the syscall mechanism, 2) when such routine wants to switch to primary mode in order to finish the housekeeping work, it has to perform this transition "manually", by a call to the hardening service, which is opening Pandora's box if badly used. From the interface design POV, I'd really prefer that xnshadow_relax/harden remain internal calls only used by the nucleus. I guess we both agree on that. But, to sum up, let's drop the micro-optimization approach to solve this issue, this just would not scale. PS: The registry is special, it has to defer some work to Linux by design, so basically all registrable objects are concerned here. > Jan > -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 19:49 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> In the light of what I have just written, you would only cause useless >>> wakeups doing so. >> My question was if the test for "useless" was really race-safe on SMP. >> Then we could introduce it again in the APC handler. Otherwise, it might >> be safer to live with some degree of uselessness. >> > > This test is only a hint; the real problem if any would happen in the > wakeup routine. As a matter of fact, moving the wakeup call to the APC > would open a SMP issue, since we would have no guarantee that the target > task did not exit in the meantime on another CPU. The current > implementation prevents this by grabbing the nklock in the taskexit > hook, which means that once somebody is running the Xenomai deletion > hook on any CPU, no shadow task can exit on another one, so this has the > same effect as holding a task reference lock Linux-wise (albeit a bit > massive). We need to work a bit more on this issue. Mmm. > >> Well, this thing seems to work, > It does, actually. > >> but it doesn't leave me with a good >> feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the >> combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination, >> termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc. >> Moreover, quite a >> lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup). >> At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary. >> Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux >> context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely >> less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic >> scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't >> see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still >> have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB >> release vs. hook execution. > Talking about xnshadow_unmap, and as your patch illustrates, what you > could postpone is basically the first part of the routine, which updates > the reference counts. The rest _must_ run over the deletion hook in > atomic context (already runs fine all Linux debug switches on). The rpi_pop()? No chance to call it before entering the scheduler and then the hooks? >>> What do you have in mind precisely? >> Preemptibility whenever having all things in a single atomic region >> doesn't buy us much. Even if rpi_pop per se might not be heavy, adding >> it to an already complex path doesn't improve things. >> >> So my spontaneous idea was, as you said the rest _must_ be atomic, if >> that piece couldn't be actually moved into the task deletion service and >> the task_exit Linux hook, ie. before taking the nklock again and do the >> final reschedule. Just an example for what might be improvable - once we >> dig here again. >> > > You don't want to run rpi_pop() after the bulk of xnpod_delete_thread() Not after, I meant before. But then... > has run for the same thread, and you don't want a preemption to occur > anytime between the thread deletion and the update of the RPI state that > still refers to it. You might try moving the call to rpi_pop() to the > prologue of both routines instead of waiting for the deletion hook to do > it, but this would introduce a priority issue in the do_taskexit_event > callout, since we might have lowered the root priority in rpi_pop() and > be switched out in the middle of the deletion process. Unless we hold > the nklock all time long, that is. Back to square #1, I'm afraid. ...there might be other issues, OK. So we might need some reference counter for the xnthread object so that the last user actually frees it and some flags to check what jobs remain to be done for cleanup. > latency hit is certainly not seen there; the real issues are left in the > native and POSIX skin thread deletion routines (heap management and > other housekeeping calls under nklock and so on). That's surely true. Besides RPI manipulation, there is really no problematic code left here latency-wise. Other hooks are trickier. But my point is that we first need some infrastructure to provide an alternative cleanup context before we can start moving things. My patch today is a hack...err...workaround from this perspective. >>> I don't see it this way. This code is very specific, in the sense it >>> lays on the inter-domain boundary between Linux and Xenomai's primary >>> mode for a critical operation like thread deletion, this is what make >>> things a bit confusing. What's below and above this layer has to be as >>> seamless as possible, this code in particular can't. >> Well, we could move the memory release of the shadow thread in Linux >> context e.g. (release on idle, a bit like RCU - uuuh). > > This is basically what Gilles did in a rec
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 19:49 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > Philippe Gerum wrote: > >> > > > > In the light of what I have just written, you would only cause useless > > wakeups doing so. > > My question was if the test for "useless" was really race-safe on SMP. > Then we could introduce it again in the APC handler. Otherwise, it might > be safer to live with some degree of uselessness. > This test is only a hint; the real problem if any would happen in the wakeup routine. As a matter of fact, moving the wakeup call to the APC would open a SMP issue, since we would have no guarantee that the target task did not exit in the meantime on another CPU. The current implementation prevents this by grabbing the nklock in the taskexit hook, which means that once somebody is running the Xenomai deletion hook on any CPU, no shadow task can exit on another one, so this has the same effect as holding a task reference lock Linux-wise (albeit a bit massive). We need to work a bit more on this issue. > > > Well, this thing seems to work, > >>> It does, actually. > >>> > but it doesn't leave me with a good > feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the > combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination, > termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc. > Moreover, quite a > lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup). > At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary. > Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux > context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely > less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic > scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't > see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still > have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB > release vs. hook execution. > >>> Talking about xnshadow_unmap, and as your patch illustrates, what you > >>> could postpone is basically the first part of the routine, which updates > >>> the reference counts. The rest _must_ run over the deletion hook in > >>> atomic context (already runs fine all Linux debug switches on). The > >> rpi_pop()? No chance to call it before entering the scheduler and then > >> the hooks? > > > > What do you have in mind precisely? > > Preemptibility whenever having all things in a single atomic region > doesn't buy us much. Even if rpi_pop per se might not be heavy, adding > it to an already complex path doesn't improve things. > > So my spontaneous idea was, as you said the rest _must_ be atomic, if > that piece couldn't be actually moved into the task deletion service and > the task_exit Linux hook, ie. before taking the nklock again and do the > final reschedule. Just an example for what might be improvable - once we > dig here again. > You don't want to run rpi_pop() after the bulk of xnpod_delete_thread() has run for the same thread, and you don't want a preemption to occur anytime between the thread deletion and the update of the RPI state that still refers to it. You might try moving the call to rpi_pop() to the prologue of both routines instead of waiting for the deletion hook to do it, but this would introduce a priority issue in the do_taskexit_event callout, since we might have lowered the root priority in rpi_pop() and be switched out in the middle of the deletion process. Unless we hold the nklock all time long, that is. Back to square #1, I'm afraid. > > > >>> latency hit is certainly not seen there; the real issues are left in the > >>> native and POSIX skin thread deletion routines (heap management and > >>> other housekeeping calls under nklock and so on). > >> That's surely true. Besides RPI manipulation, there is really no > >> problematic code left here latency-wise. Other hooks are trickier. But > >> my point is that we first need some infrastructure to provide an > >> alternative cleanup context before we can start moving things. My patch > >> today is a hack...err...workaround from this perspective. > >> > > > > I don't see it this way. This code is very specific, in the sense it > > lays on the inter-domain boundary between Linux and Xenomai's primary > > mode for a critical operation like thread deletion, this is what make > > things a bit confusing. What's below and above this layer has to be as > > seamless as possible, this code in particular can't. > > Well, we could move the memory release of the shadow thread in Linux > context e.g. (release on idle, a bit like RCU - uuuh). This is basically what Gilles did in a recent patch to fix some treading on freed memory, by releasing the shadow TCB through xnheap_schedule_free(). I think we should have a look at the removal from registry operations now. > Then the > reference counter can find a new home as well. Maybe some more things, > dunno yet. The ref. count ma
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
Philippe Gerum wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 18:21 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> This code has to work with an awful lot of runtime situations, including >>> those raised by ptracing/GDB, and thread signaling in general, so test >>> harnessing is key here. >> Well, what about listing those scenarios and their requirements in a >> comment if this is so critical? > > Eh, because I'm likely lazy as you are? :o> > Sigh, that's not a fair argument... ;-> >> That may make /me feel better as I could >> more easily go through them and check changes like those of today >> against them. >> > > Those situations have been encountered when debugging, there is no > limited set of golden rules to document, I'm afraid, this would have > been far too easy. The entire signal handling wrt ptracing is a terrible > mess - somebody must have endured a very bad Karma to implement this the > way it is (long life utrace). The ChangeLog might be a good start for > comments related to fixes in shadow.c/unmap and various head banging > sessions I went through regarding this (2.4/2.6). > and I'm furthermore not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap? How to ensure test-atomicity then?). >>> This wakeup call is there to release emerging shadows waiting on their >>> start barrier that get killed before start. Other regular cases imply >>> that either the current thread is exiting - in which case this is a no >>> brainer, or it has been sent a group kill signal, in which case it has >>> to wake up anyway. >> I didn't _removed_ cases where the wakeup takes place, I _added_ some >> more my removing the test. >> > > In the light of what I have just written, you would only cause useless > wakeups doing so. My question was if the test for "useless" was really race-safe on SMP. Then we could introduce it again in the APC handler. Otherwise, it might be safer to live with some degree of uselessness. > Well, this thing seems to work, >>> It does, actually. >>> but it doesn't leave me with a good feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination, termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc. Moreover, quite a lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup). At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary. Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB release vs. hook execution. >>> Talking about xnshadow_unmap, and as your patch illustrates, what you >>> could postpone is basically the first part of the routine, which updates >>> the reference counts. The rest _must_ run over the deletion hook in >>> atomic context (already runs fine all Linux debug switches on). The >> rpi_pop()? No chance to call it before entering the scheduler and then >> the hooks? > > What do you have in mind precisely? Preemptibility whenever having all things in a single atomic region doesn't buy us much. Even if rpi_pop per se might not be heavy, adding it to an already complex path doesn't improve things. So my spontaneous idea was, as you said the rest _must_ be atomic, if that piece couldn't be actually moved into the task deletion service and the task_exit Linux hook, ie. before taking the nklock again and do the final reschedule. Just an example for what might be improvable - once we dig here again. > >>> latency hit is certainly not seen there; the real issues are left in the >>> native and POSIX skin thread deletion routines (heap management and >>> other housekeeping calls under nklock and so on). >> That's surely true. Besides RPI manipulation, there is really no >> problematic code left here latency-wise. Other hooks are trickier. But >> my point is that we first need some infrastructure to provide an >> alternative cleanup context before we can start moving things. My patch >> today is a hack...err...workaround from this perspective. >> > > I don't see it this way. This code is very specific, in the sense it > lays on the inter-domain boundary between Linux and Xenomai's primary > mode for a critical operation like thread deletion, this is what make > things a bit confusing. What's below and above this layer has to be as > seamless as possible, this code in particular can't. Well, we could move the memory release of the shadow thread in Linux context e.g. (release on idle, a bit like RCU - uuuh). Then the reference counter can find a new home as well. Maybe so
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 18:21 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > This code has to work with an awful lot of runtime situations, including > > those raised by ptracing/GDB, and thread signaling in general, so test > > harnessing is key here. > > Well, what about listing those scenarios and their requirements in a > comment if this is so critical? Eh, because I'm likely lazy as you are? :o> > That may make /me feel better as I could > more easily go through them and check changes like those of today > against them. > Those situations have been encountered when debugging, there is no limited set of golden rules to document, I'm afraid, this would have been far too easy. The entire signal handling wrt ptracing is a terrible mess - somebody must have endured a very bad Karma to implement this the way it is (long life utrace). The ChangeLog might be a good start for comments related to fixes in shadow.c/unmap and various head banging sessions I went through regarding this (2.4/2.6). > > > >> and I'm furthermore > >> not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the > >> thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap? > >> How to ensure test-atomicity then?). > >> > > > > This wakeup call is there to release emerging shadows waiting on their > > start barrier that get killed before start. Other regular cases imply > > that either the current thread is exiting - in which case this is a no > > brainer, or it has been sent a group kill signal, in which case it has > > to wake up anyway. > > I didn't _removed_ cases where the wakeup takes place, I _added_ some > more my removing the test. > In the light of what I have just written, you would only cause useless wakeups doing so. > > > >> Well, this thing seems to work, > > > > It does, actually. > > > >> but it doesn't leave me with a good > >> feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the > >> combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination, > >> termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc. > >> Moreover, quite a > >> lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup). > >> At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary. > >> Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux > >> context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely > >> less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic > >> scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't > >> see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still > >> have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB > >> release vs. hook execution. > > > > Talking about xnshadow_unmap, and as your patch illustrates, what you > > could postpone is basically the first part of the routine, which updates > > the reference counts. The rest _must_ run over the deletion hook in > > atomic context (already runs fine all Linux debug switches on). The > > rpi_pop()? No chance to call it before entering the scheduler and then > the hooks? What do you have in mind precisely? > > > latency hit is certainly not seen there; the real issues are left in the > > native and POSIX skin thread deletion routines (heap management and > > other housekeeping calls under nklock and so on). > > That's surely true. Besides RPI manipulation, there is really no > problematic code left here latency-wise. Other hooks are trickier. But > my point is that we first need some infrastructure to provide an > alternative cleanup context before we can start moving things. My patch > today is a hack...err...workaround from this perspective. > I don't see it this way. This code is very specific, in the sense it lays on the inter-domain boundary between Linux and Xenomai's primary mode for a critical operation like thread deletion, this is what make things a bit confusing. What's below and above this layer has to be as seamless as possible, this code in particular can't. > > > >> As we are already at it: LO_MAX_REQUESTS is a hidden limitation that > >> may (theoretically) bite large setups when e.g. too many threads gets > >> killed from the "wrong" context. At least some overflow detection is > >> required here to warn the unfortunate user that he reached hard-coded > >> scalability limits. > > > > Yes. > > CONFIG_XENO_OPT_DEBUG[_NUCLEUS] or unconditionally (error return code)? > Making it depend on the debug switch looks good. People who are serious about making production software do want to activate this switch once in a while while developing it, really. > Jan > -- Philippe. ___ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 16:43 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> Just ran into this with CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG_CONTEXT (maybe due to some
>>> bug of my own):
>> Here is some code to trigger the issue reliably:
>>
>> #include
>> #include
>>
>> void task_fnct(void *arg)
>> {
>> rt_task_delete(NULL);
>> }
>>
>> main()
>> {
>> RT_TASK task;
>> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
>> rt_task_spawn(&task, "task", 0, 10, 0, task_fnct, NULL);
>> }
>>
>>
>>> [ 102.616000] I-pipe: Detected illicit call from domain 'Xenomai'
>>> [ 102.616000] into a service reserved for domain 'Linux' and below.
>>> [ 102.616000]c741bdc8 c8860ef8 c741bdec c0105683
>>> c032c200 c13fe22c
>>> [ 102.616000]c0361f00 c741be08 c01519ed c032f5b8 c032c742 c03380b3
>>> c8885100 c78beac0
>>> [ 102.616000]c741be14 c0142ce9 c7a80b30 c741be3c c884d075 c885f150
>>> c8860ef8 c741be3c
>>> [ 102.616000] Call Trace:
>>> [ 102.616000] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
>>> [ 102.616000] [] show_stack_log_lvl+0xb1/0xe0
>>> [ 102.616000] [] show_stack+0x33/0x40
>>> [ 102.616000] [] ipipe_check_context+0xad/0xc0
>>> [ 102.616000] [] module_put+0x19/0x90
>>> [ 102.616000] [] xnshadow_unmap+0xb5/0x130 [xeno_nucleus]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] __shadow_delete_hook+0x25/0x30 [xeno_native]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_schedule+0xb58/0x12f0 [xeno_nucleus]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_delete_thread+0x2cb/0x3d0 [xeno_nucleus]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] rt_task_delete+0x20d/0x220 [xeno_native]
>>>
>>> I would dare to say that module_put in xnshadow_unmap is not well placed
>>> as it can wakeup a Linux process. The module ref-counter maintenance
>>> needs some postponing, I guess.
>
> Mm, I should definitely read mails entirely.
>
>> Attached is a patch proposal. It solves the issue by postponing the
>> module_put via a new schedule_linux_call. Note that this approach issues
>> LO_WAKEUP_REQ where the old test (p->state != TASK_RUNNING) would not
>> have done so. I don't see negative side effects yet,
>
> This code has to work with an awful lot of runtime situations, including
> those raised by ptracing/GDB, and thread signaling in general, so test
> harnessing is key here.
Well, what about listing those scenarios and their requirements in a
comment if this is so critical? That may make /me feel better as I could
more easily go through them and check changes like those of today
against them.
>
>> and I'm furthermore
>> not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the
>> thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap?
>> How to ensure test-atomicity then?).
>>
>
> This wakeup call is there to release emerging shadows waiting on their
> start barrier that get killed before start. Other regular cases imply
> that either the current thread is exiting - in which case this is a no
> brainer, or it has been sent a group kill signal, in which case it has
> to wake up anyway.
I didn't _removed_ cases where the wakeup takes place, I _added_ some
more my removing the test.
>
>> Well, this thing seems to work,
>
> It does, actually.
>
>> but it doesn't leave me with a good
>> feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the
>> combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination,
>> termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc.
>> Moreover, quite a
>> lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup).
>> At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary.
>> Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux
>> context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely
>> less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic
>> scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't
>> see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still
>> have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB
>> release vs. hook execution.
>
> Talking about xnshadow_unmap, and as your patch illustrates, what you
> could postpone is basically the first part of the routine, which updates
> the reference counts. The rest _must_ run over the deletion hook in
> atomic context (already runs fine all Linux debug switches on). The
rpi_pop()? No chance to call it before entering the scheduler and then
the hooks?
> latency hit is certainly not seen there; the real issues are left in the
> native and POSIX skin thread deletion routines (heap management and
> other housekeeping calls under nklock and so on).
That's surely true. Besides RPI manipulation, there is really no
problematic code left here latency-wise. Other hooks are trickier. But
my point is that we first need some infrastructure to provide an
alternative cleanup context before we can start moving things. My patch
today is a hack...err...workaround from this perspective.
>
>> As we a
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 16:43 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Just ran into this with CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG_CONTEXT (maybe due to some
> > bug of my own):
>
> Here is some code to trigger the issue reliably:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> void task_fnct(void *arg)
> {
> rt_task_delete(NULL);
> }
>
> main()
> {
> RT_TASK task;
> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
> rt_task_spawn(&task, "task", 0, 10, 0, task_fnct, NULL);
> }
>
>
> >
> > [ 102.616000] I-pipe: Detected illicit call from domain 'Xenomai'
> > [ 102.616000] into a service reserved for domain 'Linux' and below.
> > [ 102.616000]c741bdc8 c8860ef8 c741bdec c0105683
> > c032c200 c13fe22c
> > [ 102.616000]c0361f00 c741be08 c01519ed c032f5b8 c032c742 c03380b3
> > c8885100 c78beac0
> > [ 102.616000]c741be14 c0142ce9 c7a80b30 c741be3c c884d075 c885f150
> > c8860ef8 c741be3c
> > [ 102.616000] Call Trace:
> > [ 102.616000] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
> > [ 102.616000] [] show_stack_log_lvl+0xb1/0xe0
> > [ 102.616000] [] show_stack+0x33/0x40
> > [ 102.616000] [] ipipe_check_context+0xad/0xc0
> > [ 102.616000] [] module_put+0x19/0x90
> > [ 102.616000] [] xnshadow_unmap+0xb5/0x130 [xeno_nucleus]
> > [ 102.616000] [] __shadow_delete_hook+0x25/0x30 [xeno_native]
> > [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_schedule+0xb58/0x12f0 [xeno_nucleus]
> > [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_delete_thread+0x2cb/0x3d0 [xeno_nucleus]
> > [ 102.616000] [] rt_task_delete+0x20d/0x220 [xeno_native]
> >
> > I would dare to say that module_put in xnshadow_unmap is not well placed
> > as it can wakeup a Linux process. The module ref-counter maintenance
> > needs some postponing, I guess.
>
Mm, I should definitely read mails entirely.
> Attached is a patch proposal. It solves the issue by postponing the
> module_put via a new schedule_linux_call. Note that this approach issues
> LO_WAKEUP_REQ where the old test (p->state != TASK_RUNNING) would not
> have done so. I don't see negative side effects yet,
This code has to work with an awful lot of runtime situations, including
those raised by ptracing/GDB, and thread signaling in general, so test
harnessing is key here.
> and I'm furthermore
> not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the
> thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap?
> How to ensure test-atomicity then?).
>
This wakeup call is there to release emerging shadows waiting on their
start barrier that get killed before start. Other regular cases imply
that either the current thread is exiting - in which case this is a no
brainer, or it has been sent a group kill signal, in which case it has
to wake up anyway.
>
> Well, this thing seems to work,
It does, actually.
> but it doesn't leave me with a good
> feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the
> combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination,
> termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc.
> Moreover, quite a
> lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup).
> At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary.
> Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux
> context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely
> less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic
> scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't
> see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still
> have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB
> release vs. hook execution.
Talking about xnshadow_unmap, and as your patch illustrates, what you
could postpone is basically the first part of the routine, which updates
the reference counts. The rest _must_ run over the deletion hook in
atomic context (already runs fine all Linux debug switches on). The
latency hit is certainly not seen there; the real issues are left in the
native and POSIX skin thread deletion routines (heap management and
other housekeeping calls under nklock and so on).
>
> As we are already at it: LO_MAX_REQUESTS is a hidden limitation that
> may (theoretically) bite large setups when e.g. too many threads gets
> killed from the "wrong" context. At least some overflow detection is
> required here to warn the unfortunate user that he reached hard-coded
> scalability limits.
Yes.
>
> Jan
>
>
> ---
> ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c | 61
> +++---
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> Index: xenomai/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> ===
> --- xenomai.orig/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> +++ xenomai/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ static struct __lostagerq {
> #define LO_RENICE_REQ 2
> #define LO_SIGGRP_REQ 3
> #define LO_SIGTHR_REQ 4
> +#define LO_UNMAP_REQ 5
> int type;
>
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Hi Philippe,
>>
>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Just ran into this with CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG_CONTEXT (maybe due to some
>>> bug of my own):
>>
>> Here is some code to trigger the issue reliably:
>>
>> #include
>> #include
>>
>> void task_fnct(void *arg)
>> {
>> rt_task_delete(NULL);
>> }
>>
>> main()
>> {
>> RT_TASK task;
>> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
>> rt_task_spawn(&task, "task", 0, 10, 0, task_fnct, NULL);
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>> [ 102.616000] I-pipe: Detected illicit call from domain 'Xenomai'
>>> [ 102.616000] into a service reserved for domain 'Linux' and below.
>>> [ 102.616000]c741bdc8 c8860ef8 c741bdec c0105683
>>> c032c200 c13fe22c
>>> [ 102.616000]c0361f00 c741be08 c01519ed c032f5b8 c032c742 c03380b3
>>> c8885100 c78beac0
>>> [ 102.616000]c741be14 c0142ce9 c7a80b30 c741be3c c884d075 c885f150
>>> c8860ef8 c741be3c
>>> [ 102.616000] Call Trace:
>>> [ 102.616000] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
>>> [ 102.616000] [] show_stack_log_lvl+0xb1/0xe0
>>> [ 102.616000] [] show_stack+0x33/0x40
>>> [ 102.616000] [] ipipe_check_context+0xad/0xc0
>>> [ 102.616000] [] module_put+0x19/0x90
>>> [ 102.616000] [] xnshadow_unmap+0xb5/0x130 [xeno_nucleus]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] __shadow_delete_hook+0x25/0x30 [xeno_native]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_schedule+0xb58/0x12f0 [xeno_nucleus]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_delete_thread+0x2cb/0x3d0 [xeno_nucleus]
>>> [ 102.616000] [] rt_task_delete+0x20d/0x220 [xeno_native]
>>>
>>> I would dare to say that module_put in xnshadow_unmap is not well placed
>>> as it can wakeup a Linux process. The module ref-counter maintenance
>>> needs some postponing, I guess.
>>
>> Attached is a patch proposal. It solves the issue by postponing the
>> module_put via a new schedule_linux_call. Note that this approach issues
>> LO_WAKEUP_REQ where the old test (p->state != TASK_RUNNING) would not
>> have done so. I don't see negative side effects yet, and I'm furthermore
>> not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the
>> thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap?
>> How to ensure test-atomicity then?).
>
> This one counts as mine! I am Ok with the fix, but IMHO, the
> "if(p->state != TASK_RUNNING)" probably has a reason, so I would leave
> it in the new implementation.
>
But then I need some official declaration, that this test cannot race
with whatever in case the target task runs on another CPU. I tried to
direct my brain along this twisted path, but stopped before it started
hurting too much (others would call it laziness). :)
Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 16:43 +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Just ran into this with CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG_CONTEXT (maybe due to some
> > bug of my own):
>
> Here is some code to trigger the issue reliably:
>
Ok, deletion over primary domain, that's why it triggers, since we end
up running the deletion hook over the Xenomai domain. We should post an
APC to get the module release done from the Linux space -
schedule_linux_call should be our friend there. Looking at the
module_put code, this should be ok, even over some virq context.
> #include
> #include
>
> void task_fnct(void *arg)
> {
> rt_task_delete(NULL);
> }
>
> main()
> {
> RT_TASK task;
> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
> rt_task_spawn(&task, "task", 0, 10, 0, task_fnct, NULL);
> }
>
>
> >
> > [ 102.616000] I-pipe: Detected illicit call from domain 'Xenomai'
> > [ 102.616000] into a service reserved for domain 'Linux' and below.
> > [ 102.616000]c741bdc8 c8860ef8 c741bdec c0105683
> > c032c200 c13fe22c
> > [ 102.616000]c0361f00 c741be08 c01519ed c032f5b8 c032c742 c03380b3
> > c8885100 c78beac0
> > [ 102.616000]c741be14 c0142ce9 c7a80b30 c741be3c c884d075 c885f150
> > c8860ef8 c741be3c
> > [ 102.616000] Call Trace:
> > [ 102.616000] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
> > [ 102.616000] [] show_stack_log_lvl+0xb1/0xe0
> > [ 102.616000] [] show_stack+0x33/0x40
> > [ 102.616000] [] ipipe_check_context+0xad/0xc0
> > [ 102.616000] [] module_put+0x19/0x90
> > [ 102.616000] [] xnshadow_unmap+0xb5/0x130 [xeno_nucleus]
> > [ 102.616000] [] __shadow_delete_hook+0x25/0x30 [xeno_native]
> > [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_schedule+0xb58/0x12f0 [xeno_nucleus]
> > [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_delete_thread+0x2cb/0x3d0 [xeno_nucleus]
> > [ 102.616000] [] rt_task_delete+0x20d/0x220 [xeno_native]
> >
> > I would dare to say that module_put in xnshadow_unmap is not well placed
> > as it can wakeup a Linux process. The module ref-counter maintenance
> > needs some postponing, I guess.
>
> Attached is a patch proposal. It solves the issue by postponing the
> module_put via a new schedule_linux_call. Note that this approach issues
> LO_WAKEUP_REQ where the old test (p->state != TASK_RUNNING) would not
> have done so. I don't see negative side effects yet, and I'm furthermore
> not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the
> thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap?
> How to ensure test-atomicity then?).
>
>
> Well, this thing seems to work, but it doesn't leave me with a good
> feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the
> combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination,
> termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc. Moreover, quite a
> lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup).
> At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary.
> Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux
> context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely
> less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic
> scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't
> see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still
> have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB
> release vs. hook execution.
>
> As we are already at it: LO_MAX_REQUESTS is a hidden limitation that
> may (theoretically) bite large setups when e.g. too many threads gets
> killed from the "wrong" context. At least some overflow detection is
> required here to warn the unfortunate user that he reached hard-coded
> scalability limits.
>
> Jan
>
>
> ---
> ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c | 61
> +++---
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>
> Index: xenomai/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> ===
> --- xenomai.orig/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> +++ xenomai/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
> @@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ static struct __lostagerq {
> #define LO_RENICE_REQ 2
> #define LO_SIGGRP_REQ 3
> #define LO_SIGTHR_REQ 4
> +#define LO_UNMAP_REQ 5
> int type;
> struct task_struct *task;
> int arg;
> @@ -778,6 +779,28 @@ static inline void unlock_timers(void)
> clrbits(nktbase.status, XNTBLCK);
> }
>
> +static void xnshadow_dereference_skin(unsigned magic)
> +{
> + unsigned muxid;
> +
> + for (muxid = 0; muxid < XENOMAI_MUX_NR; muxid++) {
> + if (muxtable[muxid].magic == magic) {
> + if (xnarch_atomic_dec_and_test(&muxtable[0].refcnt))
> + xnarch_atomic_dec(&muxtable[0].refcnt);
> + if (xnarch_atomic_dec_and_test(&muxtable[muxid].refcnt))
> +
> + /* We were the last thread, decrement the
>
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>
>>Just ran into this with CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG_CONTEXT (maybe due to some
>>bug of my own):
>
>
> Here is some code to trigger the issue reliably:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> void task_fnct(void *arg)
> {
> rt_task_delete(NULL);
> }
>
> main()
> {
> RT_TASK task;
> mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
> rt_task_spawn(&task, "task", 0, 10, 0, task_fnct, NULL);
> }
>
>
>
>>[ 102.616000] I-pipe: Detected illicit call from domain 'Xenomai'
>>[ 102.616000] into a service reserved for domain 'Linux' and below.
>>[ 102.616000]c741bdc8 c8860ef8 c741bdec c0105683
>>c032c200 c13fe22c
>>[ 102.616000]c0361f00 c741be08 c01519ed c032f5b8 c032c742 c03380b3
>>c8885100 c78beac0
>>[ 102.616000]c741be14 c0142ce9 c7a80b30 c741be3c c884d075 c885f150
>>c8860ef8 c741be3c
>>[ 102.616000] Call Trace:
>>[ 102.616000] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
>>[ 102.616000] [] show_stack_log_lvl+0xb1/0xe0
>>[ 102.616000] [] show_stack+0x33/0x40
>>[ 102.616000] [] ipipe_check_context+0xad/0xc0
>>[ 102.616000] [] module_put+0x19/0x90
>>[ 102.616000] [] xnshadow_unmap+0xb5/0x130 [xeno_nucleus]
>>[ 102.616000] [] __shadow_delete_hook+0x25/0x30 [xeno_native]
>>[ 102.616000] [] xnpod_schedule+0xb58/0x12f0 [xeno_nucleus]
>>[ 102.616000] [] xnpod_delete_thread+0x2cb/0x3d0 [xeno_nucleus]
>>[ 102.616000] [] rt_task_delete+0x20d/0x220 [xeno_native]
>>
>>I would dare to say that module_put in xnshadow_unmap is not well placed
>>as it can wakeup a Linux process. The module ref-counter maintenance
>>needs some postponing, I guess.
>
>
> Attached is a patch proposal. It solves the issue by postponing the
> module_put via a new schedule_linux_call. Note that this approach issues
> LO_WAKEUP_REQ where the old test (p->state != TASK_RUNNING) would not
> have done so. I don't see negative side effects yet, and I'm furthermore
> not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the
> thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap?
> How to ensure test-atomicity then?).
This one counts as mine! I am Ok with the fix, but IMHO, the
"if(p->state != TASK_RUNNING)" probably has a reason, so I would leave
it in the new implementation.
--
Gilles Chanteperdrix
___
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
Re: [Xenomai-core] [BUG] module_put called over non-root domain
Hi Philippe,
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Just ran into this with CONFIG_IPIPE_DEBUG_CONTEXT (maybe due to some
> bug of my own):
Here is some code to trigger the issue reliably:
#include
#include
void task_fnct(void *arg)
{
rt_task_delete(NULL);
}
main()
{
RT_TASK task;
mlockall(MCL_CURRENT|MCL_FUTURE);
rt_task_spawn(&task, "task", 0, 10, 0, task_fnct, NULL);
}
>
> [ 102.616000] I-pipe: Detected illicit call from domain 'Xenomai'
> [ 102.616000] into a service reserved for domain 'Linux' and below.
> [ 102.616000]c741bdc8 c8860ef8 c741bdec c0105683
> c032c200 c13fe22c
> [ 102.616000]c0361f00 c741be08 c01519ed c032f5b8 c032c742 c03380b3
> c8885100 c78beac0
> [ 102.616000]c741be14 c0142ce9 c7a80b30 c741be3c c884d075 c885f150
> c8860ef8 c741be3c
> [ 102.616000] Call Trace:
> [ 102.616000] [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1f/0x40
> [ 102.616000] [] show_stack_log_lvl+0xb1/0xe0
> [ 102.616000] [] show_stack+0x33/0x40
> [ 102.616000] [] ipipe_check_context+0xad/0xc0
> [ 102.616000] [] module_put+0x19/0x90
> [ 102.616000] [] xnshadow_unmap+0xb5/0x130 [xeno_nucleus]
> [ 102.616000] [] __shadow_delete_hook+0x25/0x30 [xeno_native]
> [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_schedule+0xb58/0x12f0 [xeno_nucleus]
> [ 102.616000] [] xnpod_delete_thread+0x2cb/0x3d0 [xeno_nucleus]
> [ 102.616000] [] rt_task_delete+0x20d/0x220 [xeno_native]
>
> I would dare to say that module_put in xnshadow_unmap is not well placed
> as it can wakeup a Linux process. The module ref-counter maintenance
> needs some postponing, I guess.
Attached is a patch proposal. It solves the issue by postponing the
module_put via a new schedule_linux_call. Note that this approach issues
LO_WAKEUP_REQ where the old test (p->state != TASK_RUNNING) would not
have done so. I don't see negative side effects yet, and I'm furthermore
not sure of the old code was handling SMP scenarios safely (What if the
thread to be unmapped was running on different CPU than xnshadow_unmap?
How to ensure test-atomicity then?).
Well, this thing seems to work, but it doesn't leave me with a good
feeling. IMHO, there are far too many cleanup cases with all the
combinations of non-shadow termination, shadow self-termination,
termination on task exit, various SMP scenarios, etc. Moreover, quite a
lot of stuff is executed in atomic scheduling hooks (namely on cleanup).
At least for shadow threads, I don't think all of this is necessary.
Actually, deferring most of the uncritical cleanup work into Linux
context would make things more regular, easier to review, and likely
less disturbing for overall system latencies. I know that atomic
scheduling hooks are required to implement certain skins, but I don't
see why janitor work should be done there as well. And we also still
have that tiny uncleanness on shadow threads termination around TCB
release vs. hook execution.
As we are already at it: LO_MAX_REQUESTS is a hidden limitation that
may (theoretically) bite large setups when e.g. too many threads gets
killed from the "wrong" context. At least some overflow detection is
required here to warn the unfortunate user that he reached hard-coded
scalability limits.
Jan
---
ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c | 61 +++---
1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
Index: xenomai/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
===
--- xenomai.orig/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
+++ xenomai/ksrc/nucleus/shadow.c
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ static struct __lostagerq {
#define LO_RENICE_REQ 2
#define LO_SIGGRP_REQ 3
#define LO_SIGTHR_REQ 4
+#define LO_UNMAP_REQ 5
int type;
struct task_struct *task;
int arg;
@@ -778,6 +779,28 @@ static inline void unlock_timers(void)
clrbits(nktbase.status, XNTBLCK);
}
+static void xnshadow_dereference_skin(unsigned magic)
+{
+ unsigned muxid;
+
+ for (muxid = 0; muxid < XENOMAI_MUX_NR; muxid++) {
+ if (muxtable[muxid].magic == magic) {
+ if (xnarch_atomic_dec_and_test(&muxtable[0].refcnt))
+ xnarch_atomic_dec(&muxtable[0].refcnt);
+ if (xnarch_atomic_dec_and_test(&muxtable[muxid].refcnt))
+
+ /* We were the last thread, decrement the
counter,
+ since it was incremented by the xn_sys_bind
+ operation. */
+ xnarch_atomic_dec(&muxtable[muxid].refcnt);
+ if (muxtable[muxid].module)
+ module_put(muxtable[muxid].module);
+
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+}
+
static void lostage_handler(void *cookie)
{
int cpuid = smp_processor_id(), reqnum, sig;
@@ -790,6 +813,12 @@ static void lostage_handler(void *cookie
xnltt_log_even
