Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 1/9] rcu: Provide GP ordering in face of migrations and delays
From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Thu Oct 05 2017 - 10:55:26 EST
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:41:14AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:29:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Consider the following admittedly improbable sequence of events:
> > o RCU is initially idle.
> > o Task A on CPU 0 executes rcu_read_lock().
> > o Task B on CPU 1 executes synchronize_rcu(), which must
> > wait on Task 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.
> > 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.
> > 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
> > complete().
> > 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'm not sure I follow, at the very least the wait_for_completion() does
> an ACQUIRE such that it observes the state prior to the RELEASE as done
> by complete(), no?
Your point being that both wait_for_completion() and complete() acquire
and release the same lock? (Yes, I suspect that I was confusing this
with wait_event() and wake_up(), just so you know.)
> And is not CPU0's QS reporting ordered against that complete()?
Mumble mumble mumble powerpc mumble mumble mumble...
OK, I will make this new memory barrier only execute for powerpc.
Or am I missing something else here?