Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/10] rcu: Add a TINY_PREEMPT_RCU

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 03:19:47PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:07:37AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Tiny-preemptible RCU implementation for rcu_read_unlock().
> > > > + * Decrement ->rcu_read_lock_nesting.  If the result is zero (outermost
> > > > + * rcu_read_unlock()) and ->rcu_read_unlock_special is non-zero, then
> > > > + * invoke rcu_read_unlock_special() to clean up after a context switch
> > > > + * in an RCU read-side critical section and other special cases.
> > > > + */
> > > > +void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > > +
> > > > +	barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutiny.c */
> > > > +	if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > > > +	    unlikely(t->rcu_read_unlock_special))
> > 
> > First, thank you for looking this over!!!
> > 
> > > Hrm I think we discussed this in a past life, but would the following
> > > sequence be possible and correct ?
> > > 
> > > CPU 0
> > > 
> > > read t->rcu_read_unlock_special
> > >   interrupt comes in, preempts. sets t->rcu_read_unlock_special
> > >   <preempted>
> > >   <scheduled back>
> > >   iret
> > > decrement and read t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> > > test both old "special" value (which we have locally on the stack) and
> > > detect that rcu_read_lock_nesting is 0.
> > > 
> > > We actually missed a reschedule.
> > > 
> > > I think we might need a barrier() between the t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
> > > and t->rcu_read_unlock_special reads.
> > 
> > You are correct -- I got too aggressive in eliminating synchronization.
> > 
> > Good catch!!!
> > 
> > I added an ACCESS_ONCE() to the second term of the "if" condition so
> > that it now reads:
> > 
> > 	if (--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > 	    unlikely((ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > 
> > This prevents the compiler from reordering because the ACCESS_ONCE()
> > prohibits accessing t->rcu_read_unlock_special unless the value of
> > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting is known to be zero.
> 
> Hrm, --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting does not have any globally visible
> side-effect, so the compiler is free to reorder the memory access across
> the rcu_read_unlock_special access. I think we need the ACCESS_ONCE()
> around the t->rcu_read_lock_nesting access too.

Indeed, it is free to reorder that access.  This has the effect of
extending the scope of the RCU read-side critical section, which is
harmless as long as it doesn't pull a lock or some such into it.

> > >                                       We might need to audit
> > > TREE PREEMPT RCU for the same kind of behavior.
> > 
> > The version of __rcu_read_unlock() in kernel/rcutree_plugin.h is as
> > follows:
> > 
> > void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > {
> > 	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > 
> > 	barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> > 	if (--ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) == 0 &&
> > 	    unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> 
> This seem to work because we have:
> 
> volatile access (read/update t->rcu_read_lock_nesting)
> && (sequence point)
> volatile access (t->rcu_read_unlock_special)

Yep!!!  ;-)

> The C standard seems to forbid reordering of volatile accesses across
> sequence points, so this should be fine. But it would probably be good
> to document this implied ordering explicitly.

I should probably review commenting globally, and this might be one
place needing help.

> > 		rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > 	WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> > }
> > 
> > The ACCESS_ONCE() calls should cover this.  I believe that the first
> > ACCESS_ONCE() is redundant, and have checking this more closely on my
> > todo list.
> 
> I doubt so, see explanation above.

Ditto!  ;-)

> > > But I might be (again ?) missing something. I've got the feeling you
> > > already convinced me that this was OK for some reason, but I trip on
> > > this every time I read the code.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Check for a task exiting while in a preemptible -RCU read-side
> > > > + * critical section, clean up if so.  No need to issue warnings,
> > > > + * as debug_check_no_locks_held() already does this if lockdep
> > > > + * is enabled.
> > > > + */
> > > > +void exit_rcu(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0)
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 1;
> > > > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > The interaction with preemption is unclear here. exit.c disables
> > > preemption around the call to exit_rcu(), but if, for some reason,
> > > rcu_read_unlock_special was set earlier by preemption, then the
> > > rcu_read_unlock() code might block and cause problems.
> > 
> > But rcu_read_unlock_special() does not block.  In fact, it disables
> > interrupts over almost all of its execution.  Or am I missing some
> > subtlety here?
> 
> I am probably the one who was missing a subtlety about how
> rcu_read_unlock_special() works.
> 
> > 
> > > Maybe we should consider clearing rcu_read_unlock_special here ?
> > 
> > If the task blocked in an RCU read-side critical section just before
> > exit_rcu() was called, we need to remove the task from the ->blkd_tasks
> > list.  If we fail to do so, we might get a segfault later on.  Also,
> > we do need to handle any RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS requests from the RCU
> > core.
> > 
> > So I really do like the current approach of calling rcu_read_unlock()
> > to do this sort of cleanup.
> 
> It looks good then, I just wanted to ensure that the side-effects of
> calling rcu_read_unlock() in this code path were well-thought.

Long ago on the first RCU priority-boosting implementation I tried doing
the rcu_read_unlock() by hand.  The unhappy lessons learned caused me
to just use rcu_read_unlock() when I encountered similar situations
later on.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul
--
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/