Re: [RFC v2] rcu/tree: Try to invoke_rcu_core() if in_irq() during unlock

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:33:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:57:57AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 07:29:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:46:23PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:41:43PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 06:21:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > Also, your commit log's point #2 is "in_irq() implies in_interrupt()
> > > > > > > > which implies raising softirq will not do any wake ups."  This mention
> > > > > > > > of softirq seems a bit odd, given that we are going to wake up a rcuc
> > > > > > > > kthread.  Of course, this did nothing to quell my suspicions.  ;-)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Yes, I should delete this #2 from the changelog since it is not very relevant
> > > > > > > (I feel now). My point with #2 was that even if were to raise a softirq
> > > > > > > (which we are not), a scheduler wakeup of ksoftirqd is impossible in this
> > > > > > > path anyway since in_irq() implies in_interrupt().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Please!  Could you also add a first-principles explanation of why
> > > > > > the added condition is immune from scheduler deadlocks?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sure I can add an example in the change log, however I was thinking of this
> > > > > example which you mentioned:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190627173831.GW26519@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	previous_reader()
> > > > > 	{
> > > > > 		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > 		do_something(); /* Preemption happened here. */
> > > > > 		local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > > 		do_something_else();
> > > > > 		rcu_read_unlock();  /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > > 		do_some_other_thing();
> > > > > 		local_irq_enable();
> > > > > 	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	current_reader() /* QS from previous_reader() is still deferred. */
> > > > > 	{
> > > > > 		local_irq_disable();  /* Might be the scheduler. */
> > > > > 		do_whatever();
> > > > > 		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > 		do_whatever_else();
> > > > > 		rcu_read_unlock();  /* Must still defer reporting QS. */
> > > > > 		do_whatever_comes_to_mind();
> > > > > 		local_irq_enable();
> > > > > 	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > One modification of the example could be, previous_reader() could also do:
> > > > > 	previous_reader()
> > > > > 	{
> > > > > 		rcu_read_lock();
> > > > > 		do_something_that_takes_really_long(); /* causes need_qs in
> > > > > 							  the unlock_special_union to be set */
> > > > > 		local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */
> > > > > 		do_something_else();
> > > > > 		rcu_read_unlock();  /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */
> > > > > 		do_some_other_thing();
> > > > > 		local_irq_enable();
> > > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > The point you were making in that thread being, current_reader() ->
> > > > rcu_read_unlock() -> rcu_read_unlock_special() would not do any wakeups
> > > > because previous_reader() sets the deferred_qs bit.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway, I will add all of this into the changelog.
> > > 
> > > Examples are good, but what makes it so that there are no examples of
> > > its being unsafe?
> > > 
> > > And a few questions along the way, some quick quiz, some more serious.
> > > Would it be safe if it checked in_interrupt() instead of in_irq()?
> > > If not, should the in_interrupt() in the "if" condition preceding the
> > > added "else if" be changed to in_irq()?  Would it make sense to add an
> > > "|| !irqs_were_disabled" do your new "else if" condition?  Would the
> > > body of the "else if" actually be executed in current mainline?
> > > 
> > > In an attempt to be at least a little constructive, I am doing some
> > > testing of this patch overnight, along with a WARN_ON_ONCE() to see if
> > > that invoke_rcu_core() is ever reached.
> > 
> > And that WARN_ON_ONCE() never triggered in two-hour rcutorture runs of
> > TREE01, TREE02, TREE03, and TREE09.  (These are the TREE variants in
> > CFLIST that have CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.)
> > 
> > This of course raises other questions.  But first, do you see that code
> > executing in your testing?
> 
> Never mind!  Idiot here forgot the "--bootargs rcutree.use_softirq"...

So this time I ran the test this way:

tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 8 --duration 10 --configs "TREE01 TREE02 TREE03 TREE09" --bootargs "rcutree.use_softirq=0"

Still no splats.  Though only 10-minute runs instead of the two-hour runs
I did last night.  (Got other stuff I need to do, sorry!)

My test version of your patch is shown below.  Please let me know if I messed
something up.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 2defc7fe74c3..abf2fbba2568 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -621,6 +621,10 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
 			// Using softirq, safe to awaken, and we get
 			// no help from enabling irqs, unlike bh/preempt.
 			raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
+		} else if (exp && in_irq() && !use_softirq &&
+			   !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs) {
+			WARN_ON_ONCE(1); // Live code?
+			invoke_rcu_core();
 		} else {
 			// Enabling BH or preempt does reschedule, so...
 			// Also if no expediting or NO_HZ_FULL, slow is OK.