Re: [PATCH] rcupdate: fix bug of rcu_barrier*()

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 02:40:30PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> 
> current rcu_barrier_bh() is like this:
> 
> void rcu_barrier_bh(void)
> {
> 	BUG_ON(in_interrupt());
> 	/* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */
> 	mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
> 	init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
> 	atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 0);
> 	/*
> 	 * The queueing of callbacks in all CPUs must be atomic with
> 	 * respect to RCU, otherwise one CPU may queue a callback,
> 	 * wait for a grace period, decrement barrier count and call
> 	 * complete(), while other CPUs have not yet queued anything.
> 	 * So, we need to make sure that grace periods cannot complete
> 	 * until all the callbacks are queued.
> 	 */
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, (void *)RCU_BARRIER_BH, 1);
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 	wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
> 	mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
> }
> 
> The inconsistency of the code and the comments show a bug here.
> rcu_read_lock() cannot make sure that "grace periods for RCU_BH
> cannot complete until all the callbacks are queued".
> it only make sure that race periods for RCU cannot complete
> until all the callbacks are queued.
> 
> so we must use rcu_read_lock_bh() for rcu_barrier_bh().
> like this:
> 
> void rcu_barrier_bh(void)
> {
> 	......
> 	rcu_read_lock_bh();
> 	on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, (void *)RCU_BARRIER_BH, 1);
> 	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> 	......
> }
> 
> and also rcu_barrier() rcu_barrier_sched() are implemented like this.
> it will bring a lot of duplicate code. My patch uses another way to
> fix this bug, please see the comment of my patch.
> Thank Paul E. McKenney for he rewrote the comment.

Still looks good to me!  Thank you again, Jiangshan, for finding and
fixing this one!!!

							Thanx, Paul

> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> index 467d594..ad63af8 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
> @@ -119,18 +119,19 @@ static void _rcu_barrier(enum rcu_barrier type)
>  	/* Take cpucontrol mutex to protect against CPU hotplug */
>  	mutex_lock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
>  	init_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
> -	atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 0);
>  	/*
> -	 * The queueing of callbacks in all CPUs must be atomic with
> -	 * respect to RCU, otherwise one CPU may queue a callback,
> -	 * wait for a grace period, decrement barrier count and call
> -	 * complete(), while other CPUs have not yet queued anything.
> -	 * So, we need to make sure that grace periods cannot complete
> -	 * until all the callbacks are queued.
> +	 * Initialize rcu_barrier_cpu_count to 1, then invoke
> +	 * rcu_barrier_func() on each CPU, so that each CPU also has
> +	 * incremented rcu_barrier_cpu_count.  Only then is it safe to
> +	 * decrement rcu_barrier_cpu_count -- otherwise the first CPU
> +	 * might complete its grace period before all of the other CPUs
> +	 * did their increment, causing this function to return too
> +	 * early.
>  	 */
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> +	atomic_set(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count, 1);
>  	on_each_cpu(rcu_barrier_func, (void *)type, 1);
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rcu_barrier_cpu_count))
> +		complete(&rcu_barrier_completion);
>  	wait_for_completion(&rcu_barrier_completion);
>  	mutex_unlock(&rcu_barrier_mutex);
>  }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/