rcu: Yet another fix for preemption and CPU hotplug
As noted earlier, the following sequence of events can occur when running PREEMPT_RCU and HOTPLUG_CPU on a system with a multi-level rcu_node combining tree: 1. A group of tasks block on CPUs corresponding to a given leaf rcu_node structure while within RCU read-side critical sections. 2. All CPUs corrsponding to that rcu_node structure go offline. 3. The next grace period starts, but because there are still tasks blocked, the upper-level bits corresponding to this leaf rcu_node structure remain set. 4. All the tasks exit their RCU read-side critical sections and remove themselves from the leaf rcu_node structure's list, leaving it empty. 5. But because there now is code to check for this condition at force-quiescent-state time, the upper bits are cleared and the grace period completes. However, there is another complication that can occur following step 4 above: 4a. The grace period starts, and the leaf rcu_node structure's gp_tasks pointer is set to NULL because there are no tasks blocked on this structure. 4b. One of the CPUs corresponding to the leaf rcu_node structure comes back online. 4b. An endless stream of tasks are preempted within RCU read-side critical sections on this CPU, such that the ->blkd_tasks list is always non-empty. The grace period will never end. This commit therefore makes the force-quiescent-state processing check only for absence of tasks blocking the current grace period rather than absence of tasks altogether. This will cause a quiescent state to be reported if the current leaf rcu_node structure is not blocking the current grace period and its parent thinks that it is, regardless of how RCU managed to get itself into this state. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.0.x Tested-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
This commit is contained in:
		
							parent
							
								
									5c60d25fa1
								
							
						
					
					
						commit
						a77da14ce9
					
				| @ -2199,8 +2199,8 @@ static void rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, | ||||
| 	unsigned long mask; | ||||
| 	struct rcu_node *rnp_p; | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| 	WARN_ON_ONCE(rsp == &rcu_bh_state || rsp == &rcu_sched_state); | ||||
| 	if (rnp->qsmask != 0 || rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)) { | ||||
| 	if (rcu_state_p == &rcu_sched_state || rsp != rcu_state_p || | ||||
| 	    rnp->qsmask != 0 || rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)) { | ||||
| 		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); | ||||
| 		return;  /* Still need more quiescent states! */ | ||||
| 	} | ||||
| @ -2208,9 +2208,8 @@ static void rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, | ||||
| 	rnp_p = rnp->parent; | ||||
| 	if (rnp_p == NULL) { | ||||
| 		/*
 | ||||
| 		 * Either there is only one rcu_node in the tree, | ||||
| 		 * or tasks were kicked up to root rcu_node due to | ||||
| 		 * CPUs going offline. | ||||
| 		 * Only one rcu_node structure in the tree, so don't | ||||
| 		 * try to report up to its nonexistent parent! | ||||
| 		 */ | ||||
| 		rcu_report_qs_rsp(rsp, flags); | ||||
| 		return; | ||||
| @ -2713,8 +2712,29 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, | ||||
| 			return; | ||||
| 		} | ||||
| 		if (rnp->qsmask == 0) { | ||||
| 			rcu_initiate_boost(rnp, flags); /* releases rnp->lock */ | ||||
| 			continue; | ||||
| 			if (rcu_state_p == &rcu_sched_state || | ||||
| 			    rsp != rcu_state_p || | ||||
| 			    rcu_preempt_blocked_readers_cgp(rnp)) { | ||||
| 				/*
 | ||||
| 				 * No point in scanning bits because they | ||||
| 				 * are all zero.  But we might need to | ||||
| 				 * priority-boost blocked readers. | ||||
| 				 */ | ||||
| 				rcu_initiate_boost(rnp, flags); | ||||
| 				/* rcu_initiate_boost() releases rnp->lock */ | ||||
| 				continue; | ||||
| 			} | ||||
| 			if (rnp->parent && | ||||
| 			    (rnp->parent->qsmask & rnp->grpmask)) { | ||||
| 				/*
 | ||||
| 				 * Race between grace-period | ||||
| 				 * initialization and task exiting RCU | ||||
| 				 * read-side critical section: Report. | ||||
| 				 */ | ||||
| 				rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp(rsp, rnp, flags); | ||||
| 				/* rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() rlses ->lock */ | ||||
| 				continue; | ||||
| 			} | ||||
| 		} | ||||
| 		cpu = rnp->grplo; | ||||
| 		bit = 1; | ||||
| @ -2729,15 +2749,6 @@ static void force_qs_rnp(struct rcu_state *rsp, | ||||
| 		if (mask != 0) { | ||||
| 			/* Idle/offline CPUs, report. */ | ||||
| 			rcu_report_qs_rnp(mask, rsp, rnp, flags); | ||||
| 		} else if (rnp->parent && | ||||
| 			 list_empty(&rnp->blkd_tasks) && | ||||
| 			 !rnp->qsmask && | ||||
| 			 (rnp->parent->qsmask & rnp->grpmask)) { | ||||
| 			/*
 | ||||
| 			 * Race between grace-period initialization and task | ||||
| 			 * existing RCU read-side critical section, report. | ||||
| 			 */ | ||||
| 			rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp(rsp, rnp, flags); | ||||
| 		} else { | ||||
| 			/* Nothing to do here, so just drop the lock. */ | ||||
| 			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags); | ||||
|  | ||||
		Loading…
	
		Reference in New Issue
	
	Block a user