user/sven/linux.git/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h, branch v3.1.1

softirq,rcu: Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity

2011-07-20T17:50:12Z

The rcu_read_unlock_special() function relies on in_irq() to exclude scheduler activity from interrupt level. This fails because exit_irq() can invoke the scheduler after clearing the preempt_count() bits that in_irq() uses to determine that it is at interrupt level. This situation can result in failures as follows: $task IRQ SoftIRQ rcu_read_lock() /* do stuff */ |= UNLOCK_BLOCKED rcu_read_unlock() --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting irq_enter(); /* do stuff, don't use RCU */ irq_exit(); sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET); invoke_softirq() ttwu(); spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock) rcu_read_lock(); /* do stuff */ rcu_read_unlock(); rcu_read_unlock_special() rcu_report_exp_rnp() ttwu() spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock) /* deadlock */ rcu_read_unlock_special(t); Ed can simply trigger this 'easy' because invoke_softirq() immediately does a ttwu() of ksoftirqd/# instead of doing the in-place softirq stuff first, but even without that the above happens. Cure this by also excluding softirqs from the rcu_read_unlock_special() handler and ensuring the force_irqthreads ksoftirqd/# wakeup is done from full softirq context. [ Alternatively, delaying the ->rcu_read_lock_nesting decrement until after the special handling would make the thing more robust in the face of interrupts as well. And there is a separate patch for that. ] Cc: Thomas Gleixner Reported-and-tested-by: Ed Tomlinson Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney

rcu: protect __rcu_read_unlock() against scheduler-using irq handlers

2011-07-20T17:50:11Z

The addition of RCU read-side critical sections within runqueue and priority-inheritance lock critical sections introduced some deadlock cycles, for example, involving interrupts from __rcu_read_unlock() where the interrupt handlers call wake_up(). This situation can cause the instance of __rcu_read_unlock() invoked from interrupt to do some of the processing that would otherwise have been carried out by the task-level instance of __rcu_read_unlock(). When the interrupt-level instance of __rcu_read_unlock() is called with a scheduler lock held from interrupt-entry/exit situations where in_irq() returns false, deadlock can result. This commit resolves these deadlocks by using negative values of the per-task ->rcu_read_lock_nesting counter to indicate that an instance of __rcu_read_unlock() is in flight, which in turn prevents instances from interrupt handlers from doing any special processing. This patch is inspired by Steven Rostedt's earlier patch that similarly made __rcu_read_unlock() guard against interrupt-mediated recursion (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/15/326), but this commit refines Steven's approach to avoid the need for preemption disabling on the __rcu_read_unlock() fastpath and to also avoid the need for manipulating a separate per-CPU variable. This patch avoids need for preempt_disable() by instead using negative values of the per-task ->rcu_read_lock_nesting counter. Note that nested rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pairs are still permitted, but they will never see ->rcu_read_lock_nesting go to zero, and will therefore never invoke rcu_read_unlock_special(), thus preventing them from seeing the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED bit should it be set in ->rcu_read_unlock_special. This patch also adds a check for ->rcu_read_unlock_special being negative in rcu_check_callbacks(), thus preventing the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS bit from being set should a scheduling-clock interrupt occur while __rcu_read_unlock() is exiting from an outermost RCU read-side critical section. Of course, __rcu_read_unlock() can be preempted during the time that ->rcu_read_lock_nesting is negative. This could result in the setting of the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED bit after __rcu_read_unlock() checks it, and would also result it this task being queued on the corresponding rcu_node structure's blkd_tasks list. Therefore, some later RCU read-side critical section would enter rcu_read_unlock_special() to clean up -- which could result in deadlock if that critical section happened to be in the scheduler where the runqueue or priority-inheritance locks were held. This situation is dealt with by making rcu_preempt_note_context_switch() check for negative ->rcu_read_lock_nesting, thus refraining from queuing the task (and from setting RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED) if we are already exiting from the outermost RCU read-side critical section (in other words, we really are no longer actually in that RCU read-side critical section). In addition, rcu_preempt_note_context_switch() invokes rcu_read_unlock_special() to carry out the cleanup in this case, which clears out the ->rcu_read_unlock_special bits and dequeues the task (if necessary), in turn avoiding needless delay of the current RCU grace period and needless RCU priority boosting. It is still illegal to call rcu_read_unlock() while holding a scheduler lock if the prior RCU read-side critical section has ever had either preemption or irqs enabled. However, the common use case is legal, namely where then entire RCU read-side critical section executes with irqs disabled, for example, when the scheduler lock is held across the entire lifetime of the RCU read-side critical section. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney

rcu: Streamline code produced by __rcu_read_unlock()

2011-07-20T04:38:53Z

Given some common flag combinations, particularly -Os, gcc will inline rcu_read_unlock_special() despite its being in an unlikely() clause. Use noinline to prohibit this misoptimization. In addition, move the second barrier() in __rcu_read_unlock() so that it is not on the common-case code path. This will allow the compiler to generate better code for the common-case path through __rcu_read_unlock(). Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers

rcu: Fix RCU_BOOST race handling current->rcu_read_unlock_special

2011-07-20T04:38:52Z

The RCU_BOOST commits for TREE_PREEMPT_RCU introduced an other-task write to a new RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED bit in the task_struct structure's ->rcu_read_unlock_special field, but, as noted by Steven Rostedt, without correctly synchronizing all accesses to ->rcu_read_unlock_special. This could result in bits in ->rcu_read_unlock_special being spuriously set and cleared due to conflicting accesses, which in turn could result in deadlocks between the rcu_node structure's ->lock and the scheduler's rq and pi locks. These deadlocks would result from RCU incorrectly believing that the just-ended RCU read-side critical section had been preempted and/or boosted. If that RCU read-side critical section was executed with either rq or pi locks held, RCU's ensuing (incorrect) calls to the scheduler would cause the scheduler to attempt to once again acquire the rq and pi locks, resulting in deadlock. More complex deadlock cycles are also possible, involving multiple rq and pi locks as well as locks from multiple rcu_node structures. This commit fixes synchronization by creating ->rcu_boosted field in task_struct that is accessed and modified only when holding the ->lock in the rcu_node structure on which the task is queued (on that rcu_node structure's ->blkd_tasks list). This results in tasks accessing only their own current->rcu_read_unlock_special fields, making unsynchronized access once again legal, and keeping the rcu_read_unlock() fastpath free of atomic instructions and memory barriers. The reason that the rcu_read_unlock() fastpath does not need to access the new current->rcu_boosted field is that this new field cannot be non-zero unless the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED bit is set in the current->rcu_read_unlock_special field. Therefore, rcu_read_unlock() need only test current->rcu_read_unlock_special: if that is zero, then current->rcu_boosted must also be zero. This bug does not affect TINY_PREEMPT_RCU because this implementation of RCU accesses current->rcu_read_unlock_special with irqs disabled, thus preventing races on the !SMP systems that TINY_PREEMPT_RCU runs on. Maybe-reported-by: Dave Jones Maybe-reported-by: Sergey Senozhatsky Reported-by: Steven Rostedt Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt

rcu: decrease rcu_report_exp_rnp coupling with scheduler

2011-07-20T04:38:51Z

PREEMPT_RCU read-side critical sections blocking an expedited grace period invoke rcu_report_exp_rnp(). When the last such critical section has completed, rcu_report_exp_rnp() invokes the scheduler to wake up the task that invoked synchronize_rcu_expedited() -- needlessly holding the root rcu_node structure's lock while doing so, thus needlessly providing a way for RCU and the scheduler to deadlock. This commit therefore releases the root rcu_node structure's lock before calling wake_up(). Reported-by: Ed Tomlinson Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney

rcu: Prevent RCU callbacks from executing before scheduler initialized

2011-07-13T15:17:56Z

Under some rare but real combinations of configuration parameters, RCU callbacks are posted during early boot that use kernel facilities that are not yet initialized. Therefore, when these callbacks are invoked, hard hangs and crashes ensue. This commit therefore prevents RCU callbacks from being invoked until after the scheduler is fully up and running, as in after multiple tasks have been spawned. It might well turn out that a better approach is to identify the specific RCU callbacks that are causing this problem, but that discussion will wait until such time as someone really needs an RCU callback to be invoked (as opposed to merely registered) during early boot. Reported-by: julie Sullivan Reported-by: RKK Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Tested-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Tested-by: julie Sullivan Tested-by: RKK

rcu: Move RCU_BOOST #ifdefs to header file

2011-06-16T23:12:05Z

The commit "use softirq instead of kthreads except when RCU_BOOST=y" just applied #ifdef in place. This commit is a cleanup that moves the newly #ifdef'ed code to the header file kernel/rcutree_plugin.h. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney

rcu: use softirq instead of kthreads except when RCU_BOOST=y

2011-06-16T06:07:21Z

This patch #ifdefs RCU kthreads out of the kernel unless RCU_BOOST=y, thus eliminating context-switch overhead if RCU priority boosting has not been configured. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney

rcu: Use softirq to address performance regression

2011-06-14T22:25:39Z

Commit a26ac2455ffcf3(rcu: move TREE_RCU from softirq to kthread) introduced performance regression. In an AIM7 test, this commit degraded performance by about 40%. The commit runs rcu callbacks in a kthread instead of softirq. We observed high rate of context switch which is caused by this. Out test system has 64 CPUs and HZ is 1000, so we saw more than 64k context switch per second which is caused by RCU's per-CPU kthread. A trace showed that most of the time the RCU per-CPU kthread doesn't actually handle any callbacks, but instead just does a very small amount of work handling grace periods. This means that RCU's per-CPU kthreads are making the scheduler do quite a bit of work in order to allow a very small amount of RCU-related processing to be done. Alex Shi's analysis determined that this slowdown is due to lock contention within the scheduler. Unfortunately, as Peter Zijlstra points out, the scheduler's real-time semantics require global action, which means that this contention is inherent in real-time scheduling. (Yes, perhaps someone will come up with a workaround -- otherwise, -rt is not going to do well on large SMP systems -- but this patch will work around this issue in the meantime. And "the meantime" might well be forever.) This patch therefore re-introduces softirq processing to RCU, but only for core RCU work. RCU callbacks are still executed in kthread context, so that only a small amount of RCU work runs in softirq context in the common case. This should minimize ksoftirqd execution, allowing us to skip boosting of ksoftirqd for CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=y kernels. Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li Tested-by: "Alex,Shi" Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney

rcu: Simplify curing of load woes

2011-06-14T22:25:15Z

Make the functions creating the kthreads wake them up. Leverage the fact that the per-node and boost kthreads can run anywhere, thus dispensing with the need to wake them up once the incoming CPU has gone fully online. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Tested-by: Daniel J Blueman