RE: [PATCH v2] rcu-tasks: Make rude RCU-Tasks work well with CPU hotplug

[Zhang, Qiang1]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:26:37AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 06:25:04AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 2022, at 11:54 PM, Zhang, Qiang1 <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 10:34:28PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > >> Currently, invoke rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp() to wait one rude
> > >> RCU-tasks grace period, if __num_online_cpus == 1, will return
> > >> directly, indicates the end of the rude RCU-task grace period.
> > >> suppose the system has two cpus, consider the following scenario:
> > >> 
> > >>    CPU0                                   CPU1 (going offline)
> > >>                          migration/1 task:
> > >>                                      cpu_stopper_thread
> > >>                                       -> take_cpu_down
> > >>                                          -> _cpu_disable
> > >>                               (dec __num_online_cpus)
> > >>                                          ->cpuhp_invoke_callback
> > >>                                                preempt_disable
> > >>                        access old_data0
> > >>           task1
> > >> del old_data0                                  .....
> > >> synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude()
> > >> task1 schedule out
> > >> ....
> > >> task2 schedule in
> > >> rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
> > >>     ->__num_online_cpus == 1
> > >>       ->return
> > >> ....
> > >> task1 schedule in
> > >> ->free old_data0
> > >>                                                preempt_enable
> > >> 
> > >> when CPU1 dec __num_online_cpus and __num_online_cpus is equal one,
> > >> the CPU1 has not finished offline, stop_machine task(migration/1)
> > >> still running on CPU1, maybe still accessing 'old_data0', but the
> > >> 'old_data0' has freed on CPU0.
> > >> 
> > >> This commit add cpus_read_lock/unlock() protection before accessing
> > >> __num_online_cpus variables, to ensure that the CPU in the offline
> > >> process has been completed offline.
> > >> 
> > >> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> 
> > >> First, good eyes and good catch!!!
> > >> 
> > >> The purpose of that check for num_online_cpus() is not performance
> > >> on single-CPU systems, but rather correct operation during early boot.
> > >> So a simpler way to make that work is to check for RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING,
> > >> for example, as follows:
> > >> 
> > >>    if (rcu_scheduler_active != RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
> > >>        num_online_cpus() <= 1)
> > >>        return;    // Early boot fastpath for only one CPU.
> > > 
> > > Hi Paul
> > > 
> > > During system startup, because the RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING is set after starting other CPUs, 
> > > 
> > >              CPU0                                                                       CPU1                                                                 
> > > 
> > > if (rcu_scheduler_active !=                                    
> > >    RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING &&
> > >           __num_online_cpus  == 1)                                               
> > >    return;                                                                         inc  __num_online_cpus
> > >                            (__num_online_cpus == 2)
> > > 
> > > CPU0 didn't notice the update of the __num_online_cpus variable by CPU1 in time
> > > Can we move rcu_set_runtime_mode() before smp_init()
> > > any thoughts?
> > >
> > >Is anyone expected to do rcu-tasks operation before the scheduler is running? 
> > 
> > Not sure if such a scenario exists.
> > 
> > >Typically this requires the tasks to context switch which is a scheduler operation.
> > >
> > >If the scheduler is not yet running, then I don’t think missing an update the __num_online_cpus matters since no one does a tasks-RCU synchronize.
> > 
> > Hi Joel
> > 
> > After the kernel_init task runs, before calling smp_init() to starting other CPUs, 
> > the scheduler haven been initialization, task context switching can occur.
> >
> >Good catch, thank you both.  For some reason, I was thinking that the
> >additional CPUs did not come online until later.
> >
> >So how about this?
> >
> >	if (rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE)
> >		return;    // Early boot fastpath.
> 
> If use RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE to check, Can we make the following changes?

>
>You will need s/WARN_ONCE/WARN_ON_ONCE/ (or supply the added arguments),
>but yes, this looks good.
>
>
>And thank you for digging down the extra level!

Can I modify sending V3 as follows?

Thanks
Zqiang

>
>							Thanx, Paul

> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> @@ -562,8 +562,8 @@ static int __noreturn rcu_tasks_kthread(void *arg)
>  static void synchronize_rcu_tasks_generic(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>  {
>         /* Complain if the scheduler has not started.  */
> -       WARN_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE,
> -                        "synchronize_rcu_tasks called too soon");
> +       if(WARN_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE))
> +               return;
> 
>         // If the grace-period kthread is running, use it.
>         if (READ_ONCE(rtp->kthread_ptr)) {
> @@ -1066,9 +1066,6 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
>  // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
>  static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
>  {
> -       if (num_online_cpus() <= 1)
> -               return; // Fastpath for only one CPU.
> -
>         rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>         schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
>  }
> 
> Thanks
> Zqiang
> 
> >
> >If this condition is true, there is only one CPU and no scheduler,
> >thus no preemption.
> >
> >						Thanx, Paul
> 
> > Thanks
> > Zqiang
> > 
> > >
> > >Or did I miss something?
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Zqiang
> > > 
> > >> 
> > >> This works because rcu_scheduler_active is set to RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING
> > >> long before it is possible to offline CPUs.
> > >> 
> > >> Yes, schedule_on_each_cpu() does do cpus_read_lock(), again, good eyes,
> > >> and it also unnecessarily does the schedule_work_on() the current CPU,
> > >> but the code calling synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() is on high-overhead
> > >> code paths, so this overhead is down in the noise.
> > >> 
> > >> Until further notice, anyway.
> > >> 
> > >> So simplicity is much more important than performance in this code.
> > >> So just adding the check for RCU_SCHEDULER_RUNNING should fix this,
> > >> unless I am missing something (always possible!).
> > >> 
> > >>                            Thanx, Paul
> > >> 
> > >> ---
> > >> kernel/rcu/tasks.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> > >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >> 
> > >> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > >> index 4a991311be9b..08e72c6462d8 100644
> > >> --- a/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > >> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tasks.h
> > >> @@ -1033,14 +1033,30 @@ static void rcu_tasks_be_rude(struct work_struct *work)
> > >> {
> > >> }
> > >> 
> > >> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct, rude_work);
> > >> +
> > >> // Wait for one rude RCU-tasks grace period.
> > >> static void rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp(struct rcu_tasks *rtp)
> > >> {
> > >> +    int cpu;
> > >> +    struct work_struct *work;
> > >> +
> > >> +    cpus_read_lock();
> > >>    if (num_online_cpus() <= 1)
> > >> -        return;    // Fastpath for only one CPU.
> > >> +        goto end;// Fastpath for only one CPU.
> > >> 
> > >>    rtp->n_ipis += cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
> > >> -    schedule_on_each_cpu(rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> > >> +    for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > >> +        work = per_cpu_ptr(&rude_work, cpu);
> > >> +        INIT_WORK(work, rcu_tasks_be_rude);
> > >> +        schedule_work_on(cpu, work);
> > >> +    }
> > >> +
> > >> +    for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > >> +        flush_work(per_cpu_ptr(&rude_work, cpu));
> > >> +
> > >> +end:
> > >> +    cpus_read_unlock();
> > >> }
> > >> 
> > >> void call_rcu_tasks_rude(struct rcu_head *rhp, rcu_callback_t func);
> > >> -- 
> > >> 2.25.1
> > >>