Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:38:20 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: rcu/tree: Protect rcu_rdp_is_offloaded() invocations on RT
Message-ID: <20210922113820.GC106513@lothringen>
References: <20210811201354.1976839-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20210811201354.1976839-4-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <874kae6n3g.ffs@tglx>
 <87pmt163al.ffs@tglx>
 <20210921234518.GB100318@lothringen>
 <20210922063208.ltf7sdou4tr5yrnc@linutronix.de>
 <20210922111012.GA106513@lothringen>
 <20210922112731.dvauvxlhx5suc7qd@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210922112731.dvauvxlhx5suc7qd@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:27:31PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2021-09-22 13:10:12 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 08:32:08AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2021-09-22 01:45:18 [+0200], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Also while at it, I'm asking again: traditionally softirqs could assume that
> > > > manipulating a local state was safe against !irq_count() code fiddling with
> > > > the same state on the same CPU.
> > > > 
> > > > Now with preemptible softirqs, that assumption can be broken anytime. RCU was
> > > > fortunate enough to have a warning for that. But who knows how many issues like
> > > > this are lurking?
> > > 
> > > If "local state" is modified then it is safe as long as it is modified
> > > within a local_bh_disable() section. And we are in this section while
> > > invoking a forced-threaded interrupt. The special part about RCU is
> > > that it is used in_irq() as part of core-code.
> > 
> > But local_bh_disable() was deemed for protecting from interrupting softirqs,
> > not the other way around (softirqs being preempted by other tasks). The latter
> > semantic is new and nobody had that in mind until softirqs have been made
> > preemptible.
> > 
> > For example:
> > 
> >                              CPU 0
> >           -----------------------------------------------
> >           SOFTIRQ                            RANDOM TASK
> >           ------                             -----------
> >           int *X = &per_cpu(CPUX, 0)         int *X = &per_cpu(CPUX, 0)
> >           int A, B;                          WRITE_ONCE(*X, 0);
> >                                              WRITE_ONCE(*X, 1);
> >           A = READ_ONCE(*X);
> >           B = READ_ONCE(*X);
> > 
> > 
> > We used to have the guarantee that A == B. That's not true anymore. Now
> > some new explicit local_bh_disable() should be carefully placed on RANDOM_TASK
> > where it wasn't necessary before. RCU is not that special in this regard.
> 
> The part with rcutree.use_softirq=0 on RT does not make it any better,
> right?

The rcuc kthread disables softirqs before calling rcu_core(), so it behaves
pretty much the same as a softirq. Or am I missing something?

> So you rely on some implicit behaviour which breaks with RT such as:
> 
>                               CPU 0
>            -----------------------------------------------
>            RANDOM TASK-A                      RANDOM TASK-B
>            ------                             -----------
>            int *X = &per_cpu(CPUX, 0)         int *X = &per_cpu(CPUX, 0)
>            int A, B;                          
> 					      spin_lock(&D);
>            spin_lock(&C);
> 	   				      WRITE_ONCE(*X, 0);
>            A = READ_ONCE(*X);
>                                               WRITE_ONCE(*X, 1);
>            B = READ_ONCE(*X);
> 
> while spinlock C and D are just random locks not related to CPUX but it
> just happens that they are held at that time. So for !RT you guarantee
> that A == B while it is not the case on RT.

Not sure which spinlocks you are referring to here. Also most RCU spinlocks
are raw.

> 
> Sebastian