Re: [PATCH RFC] v7 expedited "big hammer" RCU grace periods

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:41:29PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 06:28:43PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 09:03:55AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > > > > Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Good point -- I should at the very least add a comment to
> > > > > > synchronize_sched_expedited() stating that it cannot be called holding
> > > > > > any lock that is acquired in a CPU hotplug notifier.  If this restriction
> > > > > > causes any problems, then your approach seems like a promising fix.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you very much for your review and comments!!!
> > > > 
> > > > > >> The coupling of synchronize_sched_expedited() and migration_req
> > > > > >> is largely increased:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 1) The offline cpu's per_cpu(rcu_migration_req, cpu) is handled.
> > > > > >>    See migration_call::CPU_DEAD
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Good.  ;-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >> 2) migration_call() is the highest priority of cpu notifiers,
> > > > > >>    So even any other cpu notifier calls synchronize_sched_expedited(),
> > > > > >>    It'll not cause DEADLOCK.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You mean if using your preempt_disable() approach, right?  Unless I am
> > > > > > missing something, the current get_online_cpus() approach would deadlock
> > > > > > in this case.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, I mean if using my preempt_disable() approach. The current
> > > > > get_online_cpus() approach would NOT deadlock in this case also,
> > > > > we can require get_online_cpus() in cpu notifiers.
> > > > 
> > > > I have added the comment for the time being, but should people need to
> > > > use this in CPU-hotplug notifiers, then again your preempt_disable()
> > > > approach looks to be a promising fix.
> > > 
> > > I looked more closely at your preempt_disable() suggestion, which you
> > > presented earlier as follows:
> > > 
> > > > I think we can reuse req->dest_cpu and remove get_online_cpus().
> > > > (and use preempt_disable() and for_each_possible_cpu())
> > > > 
> > > > req->dest_cpu = -2 means @req is not queued
> > > > req->dest_cpu = -1 means @req is queued
> > > > 
> > > > a little like this code:
> > > > 
> > > > 	mutex_lock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> > > > 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > 		preempt_disable()
> > > > 		if (cpu is not online)
> > > > 			just set req->dest_cpu to -2;
> > > > 		else
> > > > 			init and queue req, and wake_up_process().
> > > > 		preempt_enable()
> > > > 	}
> > > > 	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > > 		if (req is queued)
> > > > 			wait_for_completion().
> > > > 	}
> > > > 	mutex_unlock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> > > 
> > > I am concerned about the following sequence of events:
> > > 
> > > o	synchronize_sched_expedited() disables preemption, thus blocking
> > > 	offlining operations.
> > > 
> > > o	CPU 1 starts offlining CPU 0.  It acquires the CPU-hotplug lock,
> > > 	and proceeds, and is now waiting for preemption to be enabled.
> > > 
> > > o	synchronize_sched_expedited() disables preemption, sees
> > > 	that CPU 0 is online, so initializes and queues a request,
> > > 	does a wake-up-process(), and finally does a preempt_enable().
> > > 
> > > o	CPU 0 is currently running a high-priority real-time process,
> > > 	so the wakeup does not immediately happen.
> > > 
> > > o	The offlining process completes, including the kthread_stop()
> > > 	to the migration task.
> > > 
> > > o	The migration task wakes up, sees kthread_should_stop(),
> > > 	and so exits without checking its queue.
> > > 
> > > o	synchronize_sched_expedited() waits forever for CPU 0 to respond.
> > > 
> > > I suppose that one way to handle this would be to check for the CPU
> > > going offline before doing the wait_for_completion(), but I am concerned
> > > about races affecting this check as well.
> > > 
> > > Or is there something in the CPU-offline process that makes the above
> > > sequence of events impossible?
> > > 
> > 
> > I think you are right, there is a problem there. The simple fact that
> > this needs to disable preemption to protect against cpu hotplug seems a
> > bit strange. If I may propose an alternate solution, which assumes that
> > threads pinned to a CPU are migrated to a different CPU when a CPU goes
> > offline (and will therefore execute anyway), and that a CPU brought
> > online after the first iteration on online cpus was already quiescent
> > (hopefully my assumptions are right). Preemption is left enabled during
> > all the critical section.
> > 
> > It looks a lot like Lai's approach, except that I use a cpumask (I
> > thought it looked cleaner and typically involves less operations than
> > looping on each possible cpu). I also don't disable preemption and
> > assume that cpu hotplug can happen at any point during this critical
> > section.
> > 
> > Something along the lines of :
> > 
> > static DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_wait_expedited_bits, CONFIG_NR_CPUS);
> > const struct cpumask *const cpu_wait_expedited_mask =
> > 			to_cpumask(cpu_wait_expedited_bits);
> > 
> > 	mutex_lock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> > 	cpumask_clear(cpu_wait_expedited_mask);
> > 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > 		init and queue cpu req, and wake_up_process().
> > 		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_wait_expedited_mask);
> > 	}
> > 	for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, cpu_wait_expedited_mask) {
> > 		wait_for_completion(cpu req);
> > 	}
> > 	mutex_unlock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> > 
> > There is one concern with this approach : if a CPU is hotunplugged and
> > hotplugged during the critical section, I think the scheduler would
> > migrate the thread to a different CPU (upon hotunplug) and let the
> > thread run on this other CPU. If the target CPU is hotplugged again,
> > this would mean the thread would have run on a different CPU than the
> > target. I think we can argue that a CPU going offline and online again
> > will meet quiescent state requirements, so this should not be a problem.
> 
> Having the task runnable on some other CPU is very scary to me.  If the
> CPU comes back online, and synchronize_sched_expedited() manages to
> run before the task gets migrated back onto that CPU, then the grace
> period could be ended too soon.
> 

Well, the idea is that we want all in-flight preempt off sections (as
seen at the beginning of synchronize_sched_expedited()) to be over
before we consider the grace period as ended, right ?

Let's say we read the cpu online mask at a given time (potentially non
atomically, we don't really care).

If, at any point in time while we read the cpu online mask, a CPU
appears to be offline, this means that it cannot hold any in-flight
preempt off section.

Even if that specific CPU comes back online after this moment, and
starts scheduling threads again, these threads cannot ever possibly be
in-flight in the old grace period.

Therefore, my argument is that for rcu_sched (classic rcu), a CPU going
back online while we wait for quiescent state cannot possibly ever start
running a thread in the previous grace period.

My second argument is that if a CPU is hotunplugging while we wait for
QS, either :

- It lets the completion thread run before it goes offline. That's fine
- It goes offline and the completion thread is migrated to another CPU.
  This will just make synchronize_sched_expedited() wait for one more
  completion that will execute on the CPU the thread has migrated to.
  Again, we don't care.
- It goes offline/online/offline/online/... : We go back to my first
  argument, which states that if a CPU is out of the cpu online mask at
  any given time after we started the synchronize_sched_expedited()
  execution, it cannot possibly hold an in-flight preempt off section
  belonging to the old GP.

Or am I missing something ?

Mathieu


> All of this is intended to make synchronize_sched_expedited() be able to
> run in a CPU hotplug notifier.  Do we have an example where someone
> really wants to do this?  If not, I am really starting to like v7 of
> the patch.  ;-)
> 
> If someone really does need to run synchronize_sched_expedited() from a
> CPU hotplug notifier, perhaps a simpler approach is to have something
> like a try_get_online_cpus(), and just invoke synchronize_sched() upon
> failure:
> 
> 	void synchronize_sched_expedited(void)
> 	{
> 		int cpu;
> 		unsigned long flags;
> 		struct rq *rq;
> 		struct migration_req *req;
> 
> 		mutex_lock(&rcu_sched_expedited_mutex);
> 		if (!try_get_online_cpus()) {
> 			synchronize_sched();
> 			return;
> 		}
> 
> 		/* rest of synchronize_sched_expedited()... */
> 
> But I would want to see a real need for this beforehand.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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/