From: Paul E. McKenney Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 19:49:21 +0000 (-0700) Subject: rcu: Clean up handling of tasks blocked across full-rcu_node offline X-Git-Url: http://git.cdn.openwrt.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=962aff03c315b508d980422db5b49b49e4382119;p=openwrt%2Fstaging%2Fblogic.git rcu: Clean up handling of tasks blocked across full-rcu_node offline Commit 0aa04b055e71 ("rcu: Process offlining and onlining only at grace-period start") deferred handling of CPU-hotplug events until the start of the next grace period, but consider the following sequence of events: 1. A task is preempted within an RCU-preempt read-side critical section. 2. The CPU that this task was running on goes offline, along with all other CPUs sharing the corresponding leaf rcu_node structure. 3. The task resumes execution. 4. One of those CPUs comes back online before a new grace period starts. In step 2, the code in the next rcu_gp_init() invocation will (correctly) defer removing the leaf rcu_node structure from the upper-level bitmasks, and will (correctly) set that structure's ->wait_blkd_tasks field. During the ensuing interval, RCU will (correctly) track the tasks preempted on that structure because they must block any subsequent grace period. In step 3, the code in rcu_read_unlock_special() will (correctly) remove the task from the leaf rcu_node structure. From this point forward, RCU need not pay attention to this structure, at least not until one of the corresponding CPUs comes back online. In step 4, the code in the next rcu_gp_init() invocation will (incorrectly) invoke rcu_init_new_rnp(). This is incorrect because the corresponding rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() was never invoked. This is nevertheless harmless because the upper-level bits are still set. So, no harm, no foul, right? At least, all is well until a little further into rcu_gp_init() invocation, which will notice that there are no longer any tasks blocked on the leaf rcu_node structure, conclude that there is no longer anything left over from step 2's offline operation, and will therefore invoke rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(). But this invocation of rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() is for the beginning of the earlier offline interval, and the previous invocation of rcu_init_new_rnp() is for the end of that same interval. That is right, they are invoked out of order. That cannot be good, can it? It turns out that this is not a (correctness!) problem because rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() checks to see if any of the corresponding CPUs are online, and refuses to do anything if so. In other words, in the case where rcu_init_new_rnp() and rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() execute out of order, they both have no effect. But this is at best an accident waiting to happen. This commit therefore adds logic to rcu_gp_init() so that rcu_init_new_rnp() and rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() are always invoked in order, and so that neither are invoked at all in cases where RCU had to pay attention to the leaf rcu_node structure during the entire time that all corresponding CPUs were offline. And, while in the area, this commit reduces confusion by using formal parameters rather than local variables that just happen to have the same value at that particular point in the code. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney --- diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index a6863b813f0c..9a5ba6db7b60 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -1909,12 +1909,14 @@ static bool rcu_gp_init(struct rcu_state *rsp) /* If zero-ness of ->qsmaskinit changed, propagate up tree. */ if (!oldmask != !rnp->qsmaskinit) { - if (!oldmask) /* First online CPU for this rcu_node. */ - rcu_init_new_rnp(rnp); - else if (rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp)) /* blocked tasks */ - rnp->wait_blkd_tasks = true; - else /* Last offline CPU and can propagate. */ + if (!oldmask) { /* First online CPU for rcu_node. */ + if (!rnp->wait_blkd_tasks) /* Ever offline? */ + rcu_init_new_rnp(rnp); + } else if (rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp)) { + rnp->wait_blkd_tasks = true; /* blocked tasks */ + } else { /* Last offline CPU and can propagate. */ rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(rnp); + } } /* @@ -1923,14 +1925,13 @@ static bool rcu_gp_init(struct rcu_state *rsp) * still offline, propagate up the rcu_node tree and * clear ->wait_blkd_tasks. Otherwise, if one of this * rcu_node structure's CPUs has since come back online, - * simply clear ->wait_blkd_tasks (but rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp() - * checks for this, so just call it unconditionally). + * simply clear ->wait_blkd_tasks. */ if (rnp->wait_blkd_tasks && - (!rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp) || - rnp->qsmaskinit)) { + (!rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp) || rnp->qsmaskinit)) { rnp->wait_blkd_tasks = false; - rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(rnp); + if (!rnp->qsmaskinit) + rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(rnp); } raw_spin_unlock_irq_rcu_node(rnp); @@ -2450,9 +2451,10 @@ static void rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp_leaf) long mask; struct rcu_node *rnp = rnp_leaf; - raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rnp); + raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rnp_leaf); if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || - rnp->qsmaskinit || rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp)) + WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp_leaf->qsmaskinit) || + WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_preempt_has_tasks(rnp_leaf))) return; for (;;) { mask = rnp->grpmask; @@ -2461,7 +2463,8 @@ static void rcu_cleanup_dead_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp_leaf) break; raw_spin_lock_rcu_node(rnp); /* irqs already disabled. */ rnp->qsmaskinit &= ~mask; - rnp->qsmask &= ~mask; + /* Between grace periods, so better already be zero! */ + WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->qsmask); if (rnp->qsmaskinit) { raw_spin_unlock_rcu_node(rnp); /* irqs remain disabled. */ @@ -3479,6 +3482,7 @@ static void rcu_init_new_rnp(struct rcu_node *rnp_leaf) struct rcu_node *rnp = rnp_leaf; raw_lockdep_assert_held_rcu_node(rnp); + WARN_ON_ONCE(rnp->wait_blkd_tasks); for (;;) { mask = rnp->grpmask; rnp = rnp->parent;