Re: [PATCH RFC v2 tip/core/rcu 01/22] sched/core: Add function to sample state of locked-down task

[Joel Fernandes]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:20:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 12:52:55PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 08:48:22AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [..] 
> > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > > > > index 44edd0a..43991a4 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
> > > > > @@ -455,6 +455,8 @@ static void rcu_bind_gp_kthread(void);
> > > > >  static bool rcu_nohz_full_cpu(void);
> > > > >  static void rcu_dynticks_task_enter(void);
> > > > >  static void rcu_dynticks_task_exit(void);
> > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter(void);
> > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(void);
> > > > >  
> > > > >  /* Forward declarations for tree_stall.h */
> > > > >  static void record_gp_stall_check_time(void);
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > index 9355536..f4a344e 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> > > > > @@ -2553,3 +2553,21 @@ static void rcu_dynticks_task_exit(void)
> > > > >  	WRITE_ONCE(current->rcu_tasks_idle_cpu, -1);
> > > > >  #endif /* #if defined(CONFIG_TASKS_RCU) && defined(CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL) */
> > > > >  }
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* Turn on heavyweight RCU tasks trace readers on idle/user entry. */
> > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE
> > > > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB))
> > > > > +		current->trc_reader_special.b.need_mb = true;
> > > > 
> > > > If this is every called from middle of a reader section (that is we
> > > > transition from IPI-mode to using heavier reader-sections), then is a memory
> > > > barrier needed here just to protect the reader section that already started?
> > > 
> > > That memory barrier is provided by the memory ordering in the callers
> > > of rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter() and rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(),
> > > namely, those callers' atomic_add_return() invocations.  These barriers
> > > pair with the pair of smp_rmb() calls in rcu_dynticks_zero_in_eqs(),
> > > which is in turn invoked from the function formerly known as
> > > trc_inspect_reader_notrunning(), AKA trc_inspect_reader().
> > > 
> > > This same pair of smp_rmb() calls also pair with the conditional smp_mb()
> > > calls in rcu_read_lock_trace() and rcu_read_unlock_trace().
> > > 
> > > In your scenario, the calls in rcu_read_lock_trace() and
> > > rcu_read_unlock_trace() wouldn't happen, but in that case the ordering
> > > from atomic_add_return() would suffice.
> > > 
> > > Does that work?  Or is there an ordering bug in there somewhere?
> > 
> > Thanks for explaining. Could the following scenario cause a problem?
> > 
> > If we consider the litmus test:
> > 
> > {
> > int x = 1;
> > int *y = &x;
> > int z = 1;
> > }
> > 
> > P0(int *x, int *z, int **y)
> > {
> > 	int *r0;
> > 	int r1;
> > 
> > 	dynticks_eqs_trace_enter();
> > 
> > 	rcu_read_lock();
> > 	r0 = rcu_dereference(*y);
> > 
> > 	dynticks_eqs_trace_exit(); // cut-off reader's mb wings :)
> 
> RCU Tasks Trace currently assumes that a reader will not start within
> idle and end outside of idle.  However, keep in mind that eqs exit
> implies a full memory barrier and changes the ->dynticks counter.
> The call to rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit() is not standalone.  Instead,
> the atomic_add_return() immediately preceding that call is critically
> important.  And ditto for rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter() and the
> atomic_add_return() immediately following it.
> 
> The overall effect is similar to that of sequence locks.

Yes, sounds good. My corner case did consider the full memory barrier aspect.

> > 	r1 = READ_ONCE(*r0); // Reordering of this beyond the unlock() is bad.
> > 	rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
> > 
> > P1(int *x, int *z, int **y)
> > {
> > 	rcu_assign_pointer(*y, z);
> > 	synchronize_rcu();
> > 	WRITE_ONCE(*x, 0);
> > }
> > 
> > exists (0:r0=x /\ 0:r1=0)
> > 
> > Then the following situation can happen?
> > 
> > 	READER					UPDATER
> > 
> > 						y = &z;
> > 
> > 	eqs_enter(); // full-mb
> > 
> > 	rcu_read_lock(); // full-mb
> > 	// r0 = x;
> > 						// GP-start
> > 						// ..zero_in_eqs() notices eqs, no IPI
> > 	eqs_exit(); // full-mb
> > 
> > 	// actual r1 = *x but will reorder
> > 
> > 	rcu_read_unlock(); // no-mb
> > 						// GP-finish as notices nesting = 0
> > 						x = 0;
> 
> Followed by an smp_rmb() followed the second read of ->dynticks, which
> will see a non-zero bottom bit for ->dynticks, and thus return false.
> This in turn will cause the possible zero nesting counter to be ignored.

Ah, I see. You are re-reading dynticks to confirm that the case I brought up
does not occur. That sounds good to me :) I drew out all possible (similar)
scenarios and could not break it and found the GP ordering guarantees holds :)

thanks,

 - Joel


> > 	// reordered r1 = *x = 0;
> > 
> > 
> > Basically r0=x /\ r1=0 happened because r1=0. Or did I miss something that
> > prevents it?
> 
> Yes, the change in value of ->dynticks and the full ordering associated
> with the atomic_add_return() that makes this change.
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > thanks,
> > 
> >  - Joel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > thanks,
> > > > 
> > > >  - Joel
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE */
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/* Turn off heavyweight RCU tasks trace readers on idle/user exit. */
> > > > > +static void rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE
> > > > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TASKS_TRACE_RCU_READ_MB))
> > > > > +		current->trc_reader_special.b.need_mb = false;
> > > > > +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_TRACE */
> > > > > +}