@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static inline bool rcu_seq_done_exact(unsigned long *sp, unsigned long s)
{
unsigned long cur_s = READ_ONCE(*sp);
- return ULONG_CMP_GE(cur_s, s) || ULONG_CMP_LT(cur_s, s - (2 * RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK + 1));
+ return ULONG_CMP_GE(cur_s, s) || ULONG_CMP_LT(cur_s, s - (3 * RCU_SEQ_STATE_MASK + 1));
}
/*
@@ -4197,14 +4197,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_state_synchronize_rcu);
*/
void get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(struct rcu_gp_oldstate *rgosp)
{
- struct rcu_node *rnp = rcu_get_root();
-
/*
* Any prior manipulation of RCU-protected data must happen
* before the loads from ->gp_seq and ->expedited_sequence.
*/
smp_mb(); /* ^^^ */
- rgosp->rgos_norm = rcu_seq_snap(&rnp->gp_seq);
+
+ // Yes, rcu_state.gp_seq, not rnp_root->gp_seq, the latter's use
+ // in poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() notwithstanding. Use of
+ // the latter here would result in too-short grace periods due to
+ // interactions with newly onlined CPUs.
+ rgosp->rgos_norm = rcu_seq_snap(&rcu_state.gp_seq);
rgosp->rgos_exp = rcu_seq_snap(&rcu_state.expedited_sequence);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_state_synchronize_rcu_full);
The get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() functions use the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field to detect the beginnings and ends of grace periods, respectively. This choice is necessary for the poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() function because (give or take counter wrap), the following sequence is guaranteed not to trigger: get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rgos); synchronize_rcu(); WARN_ON_ONCE(!poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(&rgos)); The RCU callbacks that awaken synchronize_rcu() instances are guaranteed not to be invoked before the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field is updated to indicate the end of the grace period. However, these callbacks might start being invoked immediately thereafter, in particular, before rcu_state.gp_seq has been updated. Therefore, poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() must refer to the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field. Because this field is updated under this structure's ->lock, any code following a call to poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() will be fully ordered after the full grace-period computation, as is required by RCU's memory-ordering semantics. By symmetry, the get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() function should also use this same root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field. But it turns out that symmetry is profoundly (though extremely infrequently) destructive in this case. To see this, consider the following sequence of events: 1. CPU 0 starts a new grace period, and updates rcu_state.gp_seq accordingly. 2. As its first step of grace-period initialization, CPU 0 examines the current CPU hotplug state and decides that it need not wait for CPU 1, which is currently offline. 3. CPU 1 comes online, and updates its state. But this does not affect the current grace period, but rather the one after that. After all, CPU 1 was offline when the current grace period started, so all pre-existing RCU readers on CPU 1 must have completed or been preempted before it last went offline. The current grace period therefore has nothing it needs to wait for on CPU 1. 4. CPU 1 switches to an rcutorture kthread which is running rcutorture's rcu_torture_reader() function, which starts a new RCU reader. 5. CPU 2 is running rcutorture's rcu_torture_writer() function and collects a new polled grace-period "cookie" using get_state_synchronize_rcu_full(). Because the newly started grace period has not completed initialization, the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field has not yet been updated to indicate that this new grace period has already started. This cookie is therefore set up for the end of the current grace period (rather than the end of the following grace period). 6. CPU 0 finishes grace-period initialization. 7. If CPU 1’s rcutorture reader is preempted, it will be added to the ->blkd_tasks list, but because CPU 1’s ->qsmask bit is not set in CPU 1's leaf rcu_node structure, the ->gp_tasks pointer will not be updated. Thus, this grace period will not wait on it. Which is only fair, given that the CPU did not come online until after the grace period officially started. 8. CPUs 0 and 2 then detect the new grace period and then report a quiescent state to the RCU core. 9. Because CPU 1 was offline at the start of the current grace period, CPUs 0 and 2 are the only CPUs that this grace period needs to wait on. So the grace period ends and post-grace-period cleanup starts. In particular, the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field is updated to indicate that this grace period has now ended. 10. CPU 2 continues running rcu_torture_writer() and sees that, from the viewpoint of the root rcu_node structure consulted by the poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() function, the grace period has ended. It therefore updates state accordingly. 11. CPU 1 is still running the same RCU reader, which notices this update and thus complains about the too-short grace period. The fix is for the get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() function to use rcu_state.gp_seq instead of the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field. With this change in place, if step 5's cookie indicates that the grace period has not yet started, then any prior code executed by CPU 2 must have happened before CPU 1 came online. This will in turn prevent CPU 1's code in steps 3 and 11 from spanning CPU 2's grace-period wait, thus preventing CPU 1 from being subjected to a too-short grace period. This commit therefore makes this change. Note that there is no change to the poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() function, which as noted above, must continue to use the root rcu_node structure's ->gp_seq field. This is of course an asymmetry between these two functions, but is an asymmetry that is absolutely required for correct operation. It is a common human tendency to greatly value symmetry, and sometimes symmetry is a wonderful thing. Other times, symmetry results in poor performance. But in this case, symmetry is just plain wrong. Nevertheless, the asymmetry does require an additional adjustment. It is possible for get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() to see a given grace period as having started, but for an immediately following poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() to see it as having not yet started. Given the current rcu_seq_done_exact() implementation, this will result in a false-positive indication that the grace period is done from poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full(). This is dealt with by making rcu_seq_done_exact() reach back three grace periods rather than just two of them. Although this fixes 91a967fd6934 ("rcu: Add full-sized polling for get_completed*() and poll_state*()"), it is not clear that it is worth backporting this commit. First, it took me many weeks to convince rcutorture to reproduce this more frequently than once per year. Second, this cannot be reproduced at all without frequent CPU-hotplug operations, as in waiting all of 50 milliseconds from the end of the previous operation until starting the next one. Third, the TREE03.boot settings cause multi-millisecond delays during RCU grace-period initialization, which greatly increase the probability of the above sequence of events. (Don't do this in production workloads!) Fourth, the TREE03 rcutorture scenario was modified to use four-CPU guest OSes, to have a single-rcu_node combining tree, no testing of RCU priority boosting, and no random preemption, and these modifications were necessary to reproduce this issue in a reasonable timeframe. Fifth, extremely heavy use of get_state_synchronize_rcu_full() and/or poll_state_synchronize_rcu_full() is required to reproduce this, and as of v6.12, only kfree_rcu() uses it, and even then not particularly heavily. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Tested-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com> --- kernel/rcu/rcu.h | 2 +- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 9 ++++++--- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)