Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96409-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:58:50 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linke li <lilinke99@qq.com>,
	joel@joelfernandes.org, boqun.feng@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
	frederic@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com,
	quic_neeraju@quicinc.com, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Fix
 rcu_torture_pipe_update_one()/rcu_torture_writer() data race and concurrency
 bug
Message-ID: <c3b94335-cf11-456d-bec7-4e4262235868@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <CAHk-=wjbDgMKLgxbV+yK4LKZ+2Qj6zVL_sHeb+L9KDia980Q8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240306142738.7b66a716@rorschach.local.home>
 <CAHk-=wgPAZ4KnCQergqAOUypwinYh=gZ0q4EQbwvuUcJ_8UK+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <83b47424-e5e0-46de-aa63-d413a5aa6cec@paulmck-laptop>
 <CAHk-=wiX_zF5Mpt8kUm_LFQpYY-mshrXJPOe+wKNwiVhEUcU9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <851dc594-d2ea-4050-b7c6-e33a1cddf3a1@efficios.com>
 <72b14322-78c1-4479-9c4e-b0e11c1f0d53@paulmck-laptop>
 <bebbed4a-ced1-42c5-865c-dc9dc7857b6c@efficios.com>
 <c1bb35c4-29af-4a84-8ba7-81ba30639a69@paulmck-laptop>
 <2721d70f-67a8-428f-903b-1c7c6c6da7f9@efficios.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2721d70f-67a8-428f-903b-1c7c6c6da7f9@efficios.com>

On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 02:53:43PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2024-03-07 14:47, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 08:53:05AM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > On 2024-03-06 22:37, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 10:06:21PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > > As far as the WRITE_ONCE(x, READ_ONCE(x) + 1) pattern
> > > > > is concerned, the only valid use-case I can think of is
> > > > > split counters or RCU implementations where there is a
> > > > > single updater doing the increment, and one or more
> > > > > concurrent reader threads that need to snapshot a
> > > > > consistent value with READ_ONCE().
> > > > 
> > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > So what would you use that pattern for?
> > > > 
> > > > One possibility is a per-CPU statistical counter in userspace on a
> > > > fastpath, in cases where losing the occasional count is OK.  Then learning
> > > > your CPU (and possibly being immediately migrated to some other CPU),
> > > > READ_ONCE() of the count, increment, and WRITE_ONCE() might (or might not)
> > > > make sense.
> > > > 
> > > > I suppose the same in the kernel if there was a fastpath so extreme you
> > > > could not afford to disable preemption.
> > > > 
> > > > At best, very niche.
> > > > 
> > > > Or am I suffering a failure of imagination yet again?  ;-)
> > > 
> > > The (niche) use-cases I have in mind are split-counters and RCU
> > > grace period tracking, where precise counters totals are needed
> > > (no lost count).
> > > 
> > > In the kernel, this could be:
> > 
> > Thank you for looking into this!
> > 
> > > - A per-cpu counter, each counter incremented from thread context with
> > >    preemption disabled (single updater per counter), read concurrently by
> > >    other threads. WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE is useful to make sure there
> > >    is no store/load tearing there. Atomics on the update would be stronger
> > >    than necessary on the increment fast-path.
> > 
> > But if preemption is disabled, the updater can read the value without
> > READ_ONCE() without risk of concurrent update.  Or are you concerned about
> > interrupt handlers?  This would have to be a read from the interrupt
> > handler, given that an updated from the interrupt handler could result
> > in a lost count.
> 
> You are correct that the updater don't need READ_ONCE there. It would
> however require a WRITE_ONCE() to match READ_ONCE() from concurrent
> reader threads.
> 
> > 
> > > - A per-thread counter (e.g. within task_struct), only incremented by the
> > >    single thread, read by various threads concurrently.
> > 
> > Ditto.
> 
> Right, only WRITE_ONCE() on the single updater, READ_ONCE() on readers.
> 
> > 
> > > - A counter which increment happens to be already protected by a lock, read
> > >    by various threads without taking the lock. (technically doable, but
> > >    I'm not sure I see a relevant use-case for it)
> > 
> > In that case, the lock would exclude concurrent updates, so the lock
> > holder would not need READ_ONCE(), correct?
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > 
> > > In user-space:
> > > 
> > > - The "per-cpu" counter would have to use rseq for increments to prevent
> > >    inopportune migrations, which needs to be implemented in assembler anyway.
> > >    The counter reads would have to use READ_ONCE().
> > 
> > Fair enough!
> > 
> > > - The per-thread counter (Thread-Local Storage) incremented by a single
> > >    thread, read by various threads concurrently, is a good target
> > >    for WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE() pairing. This is actually what we do in
> > >    various liburcu implementations which track read-side critical sections
> > >    per-thread.
> > 
> > Agreed, but do any of these use WRITE_ONCE(x, READ_ONCE(x) + 1) or
> > similar?
> 
> Not quite, I recall it's more like WRITE_ONCE(x, READ_ONCE(y)) or such,
> so we can grab the value of the current gp counter and store it into a
> TLS variable.

Good point, you could use that pattern to grab a shared snapshot.

Still sounds niche, but you never know!  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

> > > - Same as for the kernel, a counter increment protected by a lock which
> > >    needs to be read from various threads concurrently without taking
> > >    the lock could be a valid use-case, though I fail to see how it is
> > >    useful due to lack of imagination on my part. ;-)
> > 
> > In RCU, we have "WRITE_ONCE(*sp, *sp + 1)" for this use case, though
> > here we have the WRITE_ONCE() but not the READ_ONCE() because we hold
> > the lock excluding any other updates.
> 
> You are right, the READ_ONCE() is not needed in this case for the
> updater, only for the concurrent readers.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> -- 
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> https://www.efficios.com
>