Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] rcu: Fix and improve RCU read lock checks when
 !CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
From:   Alan Huang <mmpgouride@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F160D7F8-57DC-4986-90A9-EB50F7C89891@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jul 2023 23:54:47 +0800
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Sandeep Dhavale <dhavale@google.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, xiang@kernel.org,
        Will Shiu <Will.Shiu@mediatek.com>, kernel-team@android.com,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6E5326AD-9A5D-4570-906A-BDE8257B6F0C@gmail.com>
References: <20230713003201.GA469376@google.com>
 <161f1615-3d85-cf47-d2d5-695adf1ca7d4@linux.alibaba.com>
 <0d9e7b4d-6477-47a6-b3d2-2c9d9b64903d@paulmck-laptop>
 <f124e041-6a82-2069-975c-4f393e5c4137@linux.alibaba.com>
 <87292a44-cc02-4d95-940e-e4e31d0bc6f2@paulmck-laptop>
 <f1c60dcb-e32f-7b7e-bf0d-5dec999e9299@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAEXW_YSODXRfgkR0D2G-x=0uZdsqvF3kZL+LL3DcRX-5CULJ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <894a3b64-a369-7bc6-c8a8-0910843cc587@linux.alibaba.com>
 <CAEXW_YSM1yik4yWTgZoxCS9RM6TbsL26VCVCH=41+uMA8chfAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <58b661d0-0ebb-4b45-a10d-c5927fb791cd@paulmck-laptop>
 <7d433fac-a62d-4e81-b8e5-57cf5f2d1d55@paulmck-laptop>
 <F160D7F8-57DC-4986-90A9-EB50F7C89891@gmail.com>
To:     paulmck@kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> 2023=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8814=E6=97=A5 23:35=EF=BC=8CAlan Huang =
<mmpgouride@gmail.com> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>=20
>>=20
>> 2023=E5=B9=B47=E6=9C=8814=E6=97=A5 10:16=EF=BC=8CPaul E. McKenney =
<paulmck@kernel.org> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
>>=20
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:33:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:33:24AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:34=E2=80=AFAM Gao Xiang =
<hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023/7/13 22:07, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:59=E2=80=AFAM Gao Xiang =
<hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023/7/13 12:52, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 12:41:09PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> There are lots of performance issues here and even a plumber
>>>>>>>>> topic last year to show that, see:
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> [1] =
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230519001709.2563-1-tj@kernel.org
>>>>>>>>> [2] =
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAHk-=3DwgE9kORADrDJ4nEsHHLirqPCZ1tGaEPAZejHdZ03=
qCOGg@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> [3] =
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAB=3DBE-SBtO6vcoyLNA9F-9VaN5R0t3o_Zn+FW8GbO6wyU=
qFneQ@mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> [4] https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1338/
>>>>>>>>> and more.
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure if it's necessary to look info all of that,
>>>>>>>>> andSandeep knows more than I am (the scheduling issue
>>>>>>>>> becomes vital on some aarch64 platform.)
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Hmmm...  Please let me try again.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Assuming that this approach turns out to make sense, the =
resulting
>>>>>>>> patch will need to clearly state the performance benefits =
directly in
>>>>>>>> the commit log.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> And of course, for the approach to make sense, it must avoid =
breaking
>>>>>>>> the existing lockdep-RCU debugging code.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Is that more clear?
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> Personally I'm not working on Android platform any more so I =
don't
>>>>>>> have a way to reproduce, hopefully Sandeep could give actually
>>>>>>> number _again_ if dm-verity is enabled and trigger another
>>>>>>> workqueue here and make a comparsion why the scheduling latency =
of
>>>>>>> the extra work becomes unacceptable.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Question from my side, are we talking about only performance =
issues or
>>>>>> also a crash? It appears z_erofs_decompress_pcluster() takes
>>>>>> mutex_lock(&pcl->lock);
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> So if it is either in an RCU read-side critical section or in an
>>>>>> atomic section, like the softirq path, then it may
>>>>>> schedule-while-atomic or trigger RCU warnings.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> z_erofs_decompressqueue_endio
>>>>>> -> z_erofs_decompress_kickoff
>>>>>> ->z_erofs_decompressqueue_work
>>>>>>  ->z_erofs_decompress_queue
>>>>>>   -> z_erofs_decompress_pcluster
>>>>>>    -> mutex_lock
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Why does the softirq path not trigger a workqueue instead?
>>>>=20
>>>> I said "if it is". I was giving a scenario. mutex_lock() is not
>>>> allowed in softirq context or in an RCU-reader.
>>>>=20
>>>>>> Per Sandeep in [1], this stack happens under RCU read-lock in:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> #define __blk_mq_run_dispatch_ops(q, check_sleep, dispatch_ops) \
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>                rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>>                (dispatch_ops);
>>>>>>                rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Coming from:
>>>>>> blk_mq_flush_plug_list ->
>>>>>>                           blk_mq_run_dispatch_ops(q,
>>>>>>                                __blk_mq_flush_plug_list(q, =
plug));
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> and __blk_mq_flush_plug_list does this:
>>>>>>          q->mq_ops->queue_rqs(&plug->mq_list);
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> This somehow ends up calling the bio_endio and the
>>>>>> z_erofs_decompressqueue_endio which grabs the mutex.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> So... I have a question, it looks like one of the paths in
>>>>>> __blk_mq_run_dispatch_ops() uses SRCU.  Where are as the =
alternate
>>>>>> path uses RCU. Why does this alternate want to block even if it =
is not
>>>>>> supposed to? Is the real issue here that the BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING =
should
>>>>>> be set? It sounds like you want to block in the "else" path even
>>>>>> though BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING is not set:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING is not a flag that a filesystem can do anything =
with.
>>>>> That is block layer and mq device driver stuffs. filesystems =
cannot set
>>>>> this value.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> As I said, as far as I understand, previously,
>>>>> .end_io() can only be called without RCU context, so it will be =
fine,
>>>>> but I don't know when .end_io() can be called under some RCU =
context
>>>>> now.
>>>>=20
>>>>> =46rom what Sandeep described, the code path is in an RCU reader. =
My
>>>> question is more, why doesn't it use SRCU instead since it clearly
>>>> does so if BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING. What are the tradeoffs? IMHO, a =
deeper
>>>> dive needs to be made into that before concluding that the fix is =
to
>>>> use rcu_read_lock_any_held().
>>>=20
>>> How can this be solved?
>>>=20
>>> 1. Always use a workqueue.  Simple, but is said to have performance
>>> issues.
>>>=20
>>> 2. Pass a flag in that indicates whether or not the caller is in an
>>> RCU read-side critical section.  Conceptually simple, but might
>>> or might not be reasonable to actually implement in the code as
>>> it exists now. (You tell me!)
>>>=20
>>> 3. Create a function in z_erofs that gives you a decent
>>> approximation, maybe something like the following.
>>>=20
>>> 4. Other ideas here.
>>=20
>> 5. #3 plus make the corresponding Kconfig option select
>> PREEMPT_COUNT, assuming that any users needing compression in
>> non-preemptible kernels are OK with PREEMPT_COUNT being set.
>> (Some users of non-preemptible kernels object strenuously
>> to the added overhead from CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=3Dy.)
>=20
> 6. Set one bit in bio->bi_private, check the bit and flip it in =
rcu_read_lock() path,
> then in z_erofs_decompressqueue_endio, check if the bit has changed.

Seems bad, read and modify bi_private is a bad idea.

>=20
> Not sure if this is feasible or acceptable. :)
>=20
>>=20
>> Thanx, Paul
>>=20
>>> The following is untested, and is probably quite buggy, but it =
should
>>> provide you with a starting point.
>>>=20
>>> static bool z_erofs_wq_needed(void)
>>> {
>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPTION) && rcu_preempt_depth())
>>> return true;  // RCU reader
>>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT) && !preemptible())
>>> return true;  // non-preemptible
>>> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT))
>>> return true;  // non-preeemptible kernel, so play it safe
>>> return false;
>>> }
>>>=20
>>> You break it, you buy it!  ;-)
>>>=20
>>> Thanx, Paul