Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1164913 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the memory hotplug code

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the  memory hotplug code Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-06-14 21:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the  memory hotplug code Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2015-06-14 21:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the  memory hotplug code Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2015-06-15 22:40 +0200

#1164913 — Re: [PATCH 02/12] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the memory hotplug code

On 06/14, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > +		spin_lock(&pgd_lock); /* Implies rcu_read_lock() for the task list iteration: */
> >                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Hmm, but it doesn't if PREEMPT_RCU? No, no, I do not pretend I understand how it
> > actually works ;) But, say, rcu_check_callbacks() can be called from irq and
> > since spin_lock() doesn't increment current->rcu_read_lock_nesting this can lead
> > to rcu_preempt_qs()?
>
> No, RCU grace periods are still defined by 'heavy' context boundaries such as
> context switches, entering idle or user-space mode.
>
> PREEMPT_RCU is like traditional RCU, except that blocking is allowed within the
> RCU read critical section - that is why it uses a separate nesting counter
> (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting), not the preempt count.

Yes.

> But if a piece of kernel code is non-preemptible, such as a spinlocked region or
> an irqs-off region, then those are still natural RCU read lock regions, regardless
> of the RCU model, and need no additional RCU locking.

I do not think so. Yes I understand that rcu_preempt_qs() itself doesn't
finish the gp, but if there are no other rcu-read-lock holders then it
seems synchronize_rcu() on another CPU can return _before_ spin_unlock(),
this CPU no longer needs rcu_preempt_note_context_switch().

OK, I can be easily wrong, I do not really understand the implementation
of PREEMPT_RCU. Perhaps preempt_disable() can actually act as rcu_read_lock()
with the _current_ implementation. Still this doesn't look right even if
happens to work, and Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt says:

11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
	critical sections complete.  It does -not- necessarily guarantee
	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
	code, or idle loops will complete.  Therefore, if your
	read-side critical sections are protected by something other
	than rcu_read_lock(), do -not- use synchronize_rcu().

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1164914

On 06/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/14, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > +		spin_lock(&pgd_lock); /* Implies rcu_read_lock() for the task list iteration: */
> > >                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Hmm, but it doesn't if PREEMPT_RCU? No, no, I do not pretend I understand how it
> > > actually works ;) But, say, rcu_check_callbacks() can be called from irq and
> > > since spin_lock() doesn't increment current->rcu_read_lock_nesting this can lead
> > > to rcu_preempt_qs()?
> >
> > No, RCU grace periods are still defined by 'heavy' context boundaries such as
> > context switches, entering idle or user-space mode.
> >
> > PREEMPT_RCU is like traditional RCU, except that blocking is allowed within the
> > RCU read critical section - that is why it uses a separate nesting counter
> > (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting), not the preempt count.
>
> Yes.
>
> > But if a piece of kernel code is non-preemptible, such as a spinlocked region or
> > an irqs-off region, then those are still natural RCU read lock regions, regardless
> > of the RCU model, and need no additional RCU locking.
>
> I do not think so. Yes I understand that rcu_preempt_qs() itself doesn't
> finish the gp, but if there are no other rcu-read-lock holders then it
> seems synchronize_rcu() on another CPU can return _before_ spin_unlock(),
> this CPU no longer needs rcu_preempt_note_context_switch().
>
> OK, I can be easily wrong, I do not really understand the implementation
> of PREEMPT_RCU. Perhaps preempt_disable() can actually act as rcu_read_lock()
> with the _current_ implementation. Still this doesn't look right even if
> happens to work, and Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt says:
>
> 11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
> 	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
> 	critical sections complete.  It does -not- necessarily guarantee
> 	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
> 	code, or idle loops will complete.  Therefore, if your
> 	read-side critical sections are protected by something other
> 	than rcu_read_lock(), do -not- use synchronize_rcu().


I've even checked this ;) I applied the stupid patch below and then

	$ taskset 2 perl -e 'syscall 157, 666, 5000' &
	[1] 565

	$ taskset 1 perl -e 'syscall 157, 777'

	$
	[1]+  Done                    taskset 2 perl -e 'syscall 157, 666, 5000'

	$ dmesg -c
	SPIN start
	SYNC start
	SYNC done!
	SPIN done!

Oleg.

--- a/kernel/sys.c
+++ b/kernel/sys.c
@@ -2049,6 +2049,9 @@ static int prctl_get_tid_address(struct task_struct *me, int __user **tid_addr)
 }
 #endif
 
+#include <linux/delay.h>
+
+
 SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
 		unsigned long, arg4, unsigned long, arg5)
 {
@@ -2062,6 +2065,19 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(prctl, int, option, unsigned long, arg2, unsigned long, arg3,
 
 	error = 0;
 	switch (option) {
+	case 666:
+		preempt_disable();
+		pr_crit("SPIN start\n");
+		while (arg2--)
+			mdelay(1);
+		pr_crit("SPIN done!\n");
+		preempt_enable();
+		break;
+	case 777:
+		pr_crit("SYNC start\n");
+		synchronize_rcu();
+		pr_crit("SYNC done!\n");
+		break;
 	case PR_SET_PDEATHSIG:
 		if (!valid_signal(arg2)) {
 			error = -EINVAL;

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1165539

* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 09:38:25PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > On 06/14, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > +		spin_lock(&pgd_lock); /* Implies rcu_read_lock() for the task list iteration: */
> > > > >                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, but it doesn't if PREEMPT_RCU? No, no, I do not pretend I understand how it
> > > > > actually works ;) But, say, rcu_check_callbacks() can be called from irq and
> > > > > since spin_lock() doesn't increment current->rcu_read_lock_nesting this can lead
> > > > > to rcu_preempt_qs()?
> > > >
> > > > No, RCU grace periods are still defined by 'heavy' context boundaries such as
> > > > context switches, entering idle or user-space mode.
> > > >
> > > > PREEMPT_RCU is like traditional RCU, except that blocking is allowed within the
> > > > RCU read critical section - that is why it uses a separate nesting counter
> > > > (current->rcu_read_lock_nesting), not the preempt count.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > But if a piece of kernel code is non-preemptible, such as a spinlocked region or
> > > > an irqs-off region, then those are still natural RCU read lock regions, regardless
> > > > of the RCU model, and need no additional RCU locking.
> > >
> > > I do not think so. Yes I understand that rcu_preempt_qs() itself doesn't
> > > finish the gp, but if there are no other rcu-read-lock holders then it
> > > seems synchronize_rcu() on another CPU can return _before_ spin_unlock(),
> > > this CPU no longer needs rcu_preempt_note_context_switch().
> > >
> > > OK, I can be easily wrong, I do not really understand the implementation
> > > of PREEMPT_RCU. Perhaps preempt_disable() can actually act as rcu_read_lock()
> > > with the _current_ implementation. Still this doesn't look right even if
> > > happens to work, and Documentation/RCU/checklist.txt says:
> > >
> > > 11.	Note that synchronize_rcu() -only- guarantees to wait until
> > > 	all currently executing rcu_read_lock()-protected RCU read-side
> > > 	critical sections complete.  It does -not- necessarily guarantee
> > > 	that all currently running interrupts, NMIs, preempt_disable()
> > > 	code, or idle loops will complete.  Therefore, if your
> > > 	read-side critical sections are protected by something other
> > > 	than rcu_read_lock(), do -not- use synchronize_rcu().
> > 
> > 
> > I've even checked this ;) I applied the stupid patch below and then
> > 
> > 	$ taskset 2 perl -e 'syscall 157, 666, 5000' &
> > 	[1] 565
> > 
> > 	$ taskset 1 perl -e 'syscall 157, 777'
> > 
> > 	$
> > 	[1]+  Done                    taskset 2 perl -e 'syscall 157, 666, 5000'
> > 
> > 	$ dmesg -c
> > 	SPIN start
> > 	SYNC start
> > 	SYNC done!
> > 	SPIN done!
> 
> Please accept my apologies for my late entry to this thread.
> Youngest kid graduated from university this weekend, so my
> attention has been elsewhere.

Congratulations! :-)

> If you were to disable interrupts instead of preemption, I would expect
> that the preemptible-RCU grace period would be blocked -- though I am
> not particularly comfortable with people relying on disabled interrupts
> blocking a preemptible-RCU grace period.
> 
> Here is what can happen if you try to block a preemptible-RCU grace
> period by disabling preemption, assuming that there are at least two
> online CPUs in the system:
> 
> 1.	CPU 0 does spin_lock(), which disables preemption.
> 
> 2.	CPU 1 starts a grace period.
> 
> 3.	CPU 0 takes a scheduling-clock interrupt.  It raises softirq,
> 	and the RCU_SOFTIRQ handler notes that there is a new grace
> 	period and sets state so that a subsequent quiescent state on
> 	this CPU will be noted.
> 
> 4.	CPU 0 takes another scheduling-clock interrupt, which checks
> 	current->rcu_read_lock_nesting, and notes that there is no
> 	preemptible-RCU read-side critical section in progress.  It
> 	again raises softirq, and the RCU_SOFTIRQ handler reports
> 	the quiescent state to core RCU.
> 
> 5.	Once each of the other CPUs report a quiescent state, the
> 	grace period can end, despite CPU 0 having preemption
> 	disabled the whole time.
> 
> So Oleg's test is correct, disabling preemption is not sufficient
> to block a preemptible-RCU grace period.

I stand corrected!

> The usual suggestion would be to add rcu_read_lock() just after the lock is 
> acquired and rcu_read_unlock() just before each release of that same lock.  

Will fix it that way.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web