Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Provide GP ordering in face of migrations and delays
From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Thu Oct 05 2017 - 09:17:10 EST
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:29:27 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Consider the following admittedly improbable sequence of events:
> o RCU is initially idle.
> o Task A on CPU 0 executes rcu_read_lock().
A starts rcu_read_lock() critical section.
> o Task B on CPU 1 executes synchronize_rcu(), which must
> wait on Task A:
B waits for A.
> o Task B registers the callback, which starts a new
> grace period, awakening the grace-period kthread
> on CPU 3, which immediately starts a new grace period.
[ isn't B blocked (off rq)? How does it migrate? ]
> o Task B migrates to CPU 2, which provides a quiescent
> state for both CPUs 1 and 2.
> o Both CPUs 1 and 2 take scheduling-clock interrupts,
> and both invoke RCU_SOFTIRQ, both thus learning of the
> new grace period.
> o Task B is delayed, perhaps by vCPU preemption on CPU 2.
> o CPUs 2 and 3 pass through quiescent states, which are reported
> to core RCU.
> o Task B is resumed just long enough to be migrated to CPU 3,
> and then is once again delayed.
> o Task A executes rcu_read_unlock(), exiting its RCU read-side
> critical section.
A calls rcu_read_unlock() ending the critical section
> o CPU 0 passes through a quiescent sate, which is reported to
> core RCU. Only CPU 1 continues to block the grace period.
> o CPU 1 passes through a quiescent state, which is reported to
> core RCU. This ends the grace period, and CPU 1 therefore
> invokes its callbacks, one of which awakens Task B via
> o Task B resumes (still on CPU 3) and starts executing
> wait_for_completion(), which sees that the completion has
> already completed, and thus does not block. It returns from
> the synchronize_rcu() without any ordering against the
> end of Task A's RCU read-side critical section.
> It can therefore mess up Task A's RCU read-side critical section,
> in theory, anyway.
I don't see how B ran during A's critical section.
> However, if CPU hotplug ever gets rid of stop_machine(), there will be
> more straightforward ways for this sort of thing to happen, so this
> commit adds a memory barrier in order to enforce the needed ordering.