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

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Tue Nov 29 2022 - 20:02:20 EST

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:50:34AM +0000, Zhang, Qiang1 wrote:
> 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?

Your patch shown below is a good starting point.

You will need to fix up this line of code, though:

if(WARN_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INACTIVE))

Thanx, Paul

> 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
> > > >>