Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 1 Jul 2018 11:38:28 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        jiangshanlai@gmail.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
        josh@joshtriplett.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com,
        fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 1/2] rcu: Defer reporting RCU-preempt
 quiescent states when disabled
Message-ID: <20180701183828.GB111992@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <20180627204835.GA25456@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20180627204915.27253-1-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180627204915.27253-1-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Paul,

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 01:49:14PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index c1b17f5b9361..ff5c70eae47d 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -371,6 +371,9 @@ static void rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(bool preempt)
>  		 * behalf of preempted instance of __rcu_read_unlock().
>  		 */
>  		rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> +		rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
> +	} else {
> +		rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(t);
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -464,54 +467,51 @@ static bool rcu_preempt_has_tasks(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> - * Handle special cases during rcu_read_unlock(), such as needing to
> - * notify RCU core processing or task having blocked during the RCU
> - * read-side critical section.
> + * Report deferred quiescent states.  The deferral time can
> + * be quite short, for example, in the case of the call from
> + * rcu_read_unlock_special().
>   */
> -static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> +static void
> +rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(struct task_struct *t, unsigned long flags)
>  {
>  	bool empty_exp;
>  	bool empty_norm;
>  	bool empty_exp_now;
> -	unsigned long flags;
>  	struct list_head *np;
>  	bool drop_boost_mutex = false;
>  	struct rcu_data *rdp;
>  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
>  	union rcu_special special;
>  
> -	/* NMI handlers cannot block and cannot safely manipulate state. */
> -	if (in_nmi())
> -		return;
> -
> -	local_irq_save(flags);
> -
>  	/*
>  	 * If RCU core is waiting for this CPU to exit its critical section,
>  	 * report the fact that it has exited.  Because irqs are disabled,
>  	 * t->rcu_read_unlock_special cannot change.
>  	 */
>  	special = t->rcu_read_unlock_special;
> +	rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rcu_state_p->rda);
> +	if (!special.s && !rdp->deferred_qs) {
> +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +		return;
> +	}
>  	if (special.b.need_qs) {
>  		rcu_preempt_qs();
>  		t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs = false;
> -		if (!t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s) {
> +		if (!t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s && !rdp->deferred_qs) {
>  			local_irq_restore(flags);
>  			return;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Respond to a request for an expedited grace period, but only if
> -	 * we were not preempted, meaning that we were running on the same
> -	 * CPU throughout.  If we were preempted, the exp_need_qs flag
> -	 * would have been cleared at the time of the first preemption,
> -	 * and the quiescent state would be reported when we were dequeued.
> +	 * Respond to a request by an expedited grace period for a
> +	 * quiescent state from this CPU.  Note that requests from
> +	 * tasks are handled when removing the task from the
> +	 * blocked-tasks list below.
>  	 */
> -	if (special.b.exp_need_qs) {
> -		WARN_ON_ONCE(special.b.blocked);
> +	if (special.b.exp_need_qs || rdp->deferred_qs) {
>  		t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_need_qs = false;
> -		rdp = this_cpu_ptr(rcu_state_p->rda);
> +		rdp->deferred_qs = false;
>  		rcu_report_exp_rdp(rcu_state_p, rdp, true);
>  		if (!t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s) {
>  			local_irq_restore(flags);
> @@ -519,19 +519,6 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	/* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block, complain if they get here. */
> -	if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
> -		lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__,
> -				       "rcu_read_unlock() from irq or softirq with blocking in critical section!!!\n");
> -		pr_alert("->rcu_read_unlock_special: %#x (b: %d, enq: %d nq: %d)\n",
> -			 t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s,
> -			 t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.blocked,
> -			 t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_need_qs,
> -			 t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.need_qs);
> -		local_irq_restore(flags);
> -		return;
> -	}
> -
>  	/* Clean up if blocked during RCU read-side critical section. */
>  	if (special.b.blocked) {
>  		t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.blocked = false;
> @@ -602,6 +589,66 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Is a deferred quiescent-state pending, and are we also not in
> + * an RCU read-side critical section?  It is the caller's responsibility
> + * to ensure it is otherwise safe to report any deferred quiescent
> + * states.  The reason for this is that it is safe to report a
> + * quiescent state during context switch even though preemption
> + * is disabled.  This function cannot be expected to understand these
> + * nuances, so the caller must handle them.
> + */
> +static bool rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t)
> +{
> +	return (this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_preempt_data)->deferred_qs ||
> +		READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s)) &&
> +	       !t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Report a deferred quiescent state if needed and safe to do so.
> + * As with rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(), "safe" involves only
> + * not being in an RCU read-side critical section.  The caller must
> + * evaluate safety in terms of interrupt, softirq, and preemption
> + * disabling.
> + */
> +static void rcu_preempt_deferred_qs(struct task_struct *t)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	if (!rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t))
> +		return;
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Handle special cases during rcu_read_unlock(), such as needing to
> + * notify RCU core processing or task having blocked during the RCU
> + * read-side critical section.
> + */
> +static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> +{
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	bool preempt_bh_were_disabled = !!(preempt_count() & ~HARDIRQ_MASK);
> +	bool irqs_were_disabled;
> +
> +	/* NMI handlers cannot block and cannot safely manipulate state. */
> +	if (in_nmi())
> +		return;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	irqs_were_disabled = irqs_disabled_flags(flags);
> +	if ((preempt_bh_were_disabled || irqs_were_disabled) &&
> +	    t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.blocked) {
> +		/* Need to defer quiescent state until everything is enabled. */
> +		raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
> +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +	rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Dump detailed information for all tasks blocking the current RCU
>   * grace period on the specified rcu_node structure.
> @@ -737,10 +784,20 @@ static void rcu_preempt_check_callbacks(void)
>  	struct rcu_state *rsp = &rcu_preempt_state;
>  	struct task_struct *t = current;
>  
> -	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0) {
> -		rcu_preempt_qs();
> +	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting > 0 ||
> +	    (preempt_count() & (PREEMPT_MASK | SOFTIRQ_MASK))) {
> +		/* No QS, force context switch if deferred. */
> +		if (rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs(t))
> +			resched_cpu(smp_processor_id());

 
Hi Paul,

I had a similar idea of checking the preempt_count() sometime back but didn't
believe this path can be called with preempt enabled (for some reason ;-)).
Now that I've convinced myself that's possible, what do you think about
taking advantage of the opportunity to report a RCU-sched qs like below from
rcu_check_callbacks ?

Did some basic testing, can roll into a patch later if you're Ok with it.

thanks.

---8<-----------------------

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index fb440baf8ac6..caa1e68f4168 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -2683,6 +2683,12 @@ void rcu_check_callbacks(int user)
 		rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch(current);
 
 	} else if (!in_softirq()) {
+		/*
+		 * Report RCU-sched qs if not in an RCU-sched read-side
+		 * critical section.
+		 */
+		if (!(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_MASK))
+			rcu_sched_qs();
 
 		/*
 		 * Get here if this CPU did not take its interrupt from