doc.2023.05.10a: Documentation updates fixes.2023.05.11a: Miscellaneous fixes kvfree.2023.05.10a: kvfree_rcu updates nocb.2023.05.11a: Callback-offloading updates rcu-tasks.2023.05.10a: Tasks RCU updates torture.2023.05.15a: Torture-test updates rcu-urgent.2023.06.06a: Urgent SRCU fix
The rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() function relies on queue_work_on() to silently
fall back to WORK_CPU_UNBOUND when the specified CPU is offline. However,
the queue_work_on() function's silent fallback mechanism relies on that
CPU having been online at some time in the past. When queue_work_on()
is passed a CPU that has never been online, workqueue lockups ensue,
which can be bad for your kernel's general health and well-being.
This commit therefore checks whether a given CPU has ever been online,
and, if not substitutes WORK_CPU_UNBOUND in the subsequent call to
queue_work_on(). Why not simply omit the queue_work_on() call entirely?
Because this function is flooding callback-invocation notifications
to all CPUs, and must deal with possibilities that include a sparse
cpu_possible_mask.
This commit also moves the setting of the rcu_data structure's
->beenonline field to rcu_cpu_starting(), which executes on the
incoming CPU before that CPU has ever enabled interrupts. This ensures
that the required workqueues are present. In addition, because the
incoming CPU has not yet enabled its interrupts, there cannot yet have
been any softirq handlers running on this CPU, which means that the
WARN_ON_ONCE(!rdp->beenonline) within the RCU_SOFTIRQ handler cannot
have triggered yet.
Fixes: d363f833c6d88 ("rcu-tasks: Use workqueues for multiple rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() invocations")
Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
This commit uses rtp->name instead of __func__ and outputs the value of rcu_task_cb_adjust, thus reducing console-log output. Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
pr_info() is called with rtp->cbs_gbl_lock spin lock locked. Because
pr_info() calls printk() that might sleep, this will result in BUG
like below:
[ 0.206455] cblist_init_generic: Setting adjustable number of callback queues.
[ 0.206463]
[ 0.206464] =============================
[ 0.206464] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
[ 0.206465] 5.19.0-00428-g9de1f9c8ca51 #5 Not tainted
[ 0.206466] -----------------------------
[ 0.206466] swapper/0/1 is trying to lock:
[ 0.206467] ffffffffa0167a58 (&port_lock_key){....}-{3:3}, at: serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[ 0.206473] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 0.206473] context-{5:5}
[ 0.206474] 3 locks held by swapper/0/1:
[ 0.206474] #0: ffffffff9eb597e0 (rcu_tasks.cbs_gbl_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: cblist_init_generic.constprop.0+0x14/0x1f0
[ 0.206478] #1: ffffffff9eb579c0 (console_lock){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: _printk+0x63/0x7e
[ 0.206482] #2: ffffffff9ea77780 (console_owner){....}-{0:0}, at: console_emit_next_record.constprop.0+0x111/0x330
[ 0.206485] stack backtrace:
[ 0.206486] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.19.0-00428-g9de1f9c8ca51 #5
[ 0.206488] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.16.0-1.fc36 04/01/2014
[ 0.206489] Call Trace:
[ 0.206490] <TASK>
[ 0.206491] dump_stack_lvl+0x6a/0x9f
[ 0.206493] __lock_acquire.cold+0x2d7/0x2fe
[ 0.206496] ? stack_trace_save+0x46/0x70
[ 0.206497] lock_acquire+0xd1/0x2f0
[ 0.206499] ? serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[ 0.206500] ? __lock_acquire+0x5c7/0x2720
[ 0.206502] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3d/0x90
[ 0.206504] ? serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[ 0.206506] serial8250_console_write+0x327/0x4a0
[ 0.206508] console_emit_next_record.constprop.0+0x180/0x330
[ 0.206511] console_unlock+0xf7/0x1f0
[ 0.206512] vprintk_emit+0xf7/0x330
[ 0.206514] _printk+0x63/0x7e
[ 0.206516] cblist_init_generic.constprop.0.cold+0x24/0x32
[ 0.206518] rcu_init_tasks_generic+0x5/0xd9
[ 0.206522] kernel_init_freeable+0x15b/0x2a2
[ 0.206523] ? rest_init+0x160/0x160
[ 0.206526] kernel_init+0x11/0x120
[ 0.206527] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
[ 0.206530] </TASK>
[ 0.207018] cblist_init_generic: Setting shift to 1 and lim to 1.
This patch moves pr_info() so that it is called without
rtp->cbs_gbl_lock locked.
Signed-off-by: Shigeru Yoshida <syoshida@redhat.com>
Tested-by: "Zhang, Qiang1" <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
The call to synchronize_srcu() from rcu_tasks_postscan() can be stalled by a task getting stuck in do_exit() between that function's calls to exit_tasks_rcu_start() and exit_tasks_rcu_finish(). To ease diagnosis of this situation, print a stall warning message every rcu_task_stall_info period when rcu_tasks_postscan() is stalled. [ paulmck: Adjust to handle CONFIG_SMP=n. ] Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Reported-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/rcu/20230111212736.GA1062057@paulmck-ThinkPad-P17-Gen-1/ Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
The tasks_rcu_exit_srcu variable is used only by kernels built with CONFIG_TASKS_RCU=y, but is defined for all kernesl with CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_GENERIC=y. Therefore, in kernels built with CONFIG_TASKS_RCU_GENERIC=y but CONFIG_TASKS_RCU=n, this gives a "defined but not used" warning. This commit therefore moves this variable under CONFIG_TASKS_RCU. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202303191536.XzMSyzTl-lkp@intel.com/ Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> Tested-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
The rcu_tasks_need_gpcb() determines whether or not: (1) There are callbacks needing another grace period, (2) There are callbacks ready to be invoked, and (3) It would be a good time to shrink back down to a single-CPU callback list. This third case is interesting because some other CPU might be adding new callbacks, which might suddenly make this a very bad time to be shrinking. This is currently handled by requiring call_rcu_tasks_generic() to enqueue callbacks under the protection of rcu_read_lock() and requiring rcu_tasks_need_gpcb() to wait for an RCU grace period to elapse before finalizing the transition. This works well in practice. Unfortunately, the current code assumes that a grace period whose end is detected by the poll_state_synchronize_rcu() in the second "if" condition actually ended before the earlier code counted the callbacks queued on CPUs other than CPU 0 (local variable "ncbsnz"). Given the current code, it is possible that a long-delayed call_rcu_tasks_generic() invocation will queue a callback on a non-zero CPU after these CPUs have had their callbacks counted and zero has been stored to ncbsnz. Such a callback would trigger the WARN_ON_ONCE() in the second "if" statement. To see this, consider the following sequence of events: o CPU 0 invokes rcu_tasks_one_gp(), and counts fewer than rcu_task_collapse_lim callbacks. It sees at least one callback queued on some other CPU, thus setting ncbsnz to a non-zero value. o CPU 1 invokes call_rcu_tasks_generic() and loads 42 from ->percpu_enqueue_lim. It therefore decides to enqueue its callback onto CPU 1's callback list, but is delayed. o CPU 0 sees the rcu_task_cb_adjust is non-zero and that the number of callbacks does not exceed rcu_task_collapse_lim. It therefore checks percpu_enqueue_lim, and sees that its value is greater than the value one. CPU 0 therefore starts the shift back to a single callback list. It sets ->percpu_enqueue_lim to 1, but CPU 1 has already read the old value of 42. It also gets a grace-period state value from get_state_synchronize_rcu(). o CPU 0 sees that ncbsnz is non-zero in its second "if" statement, so it declines to finalize the shrink operation. o CPU 0 again invokes rcu_tasks_one_gp(), and counts fewer than rcu_task_collapse_lim callbacks. It also sees that there are no callback queued on any other CPU, and thus sets ncbsnz to zero. o CPU 1 resumes execution and enqueues its callback onto its own list. This invalidates the value of ncbsnz. o CPU 0 sees the rcu_task_cb_adjust is non-zero and that the number of callbacks does not exceed rcu_task_collapse_lim. It therefore checks percpu_enqueue_lim, but sees that its value is already unity. It therefore does not get a new grace-period state value. o CPU 0 sees that rcu_task_cb_adjust is non-zero, ncbsnz is zero, and that poll_state_synchronize_rcu() says that the grace period has completed. it therefore finalizes the shrink operation, setting ->percpu_dequeue_lim to the value one. o CPU 0 does a debug check, scanning the other CPUs' callback lists. It sees that CPU 1's list has a callback, so it (rightly) triggers the WARN_ON_ONCE(). After all, the new value of ->percpu_dequeue_lim says to not bother looking at CPU 1's callback list, which means that this callback will never be invoked. This can result in hangs and maybe even OOMs. Based on long experience with rcutorture, this is an extremely low-probability race condition, but it really can happen, especially in preemptible kernels or within guest OSes. This commit therefore checks for completion of the grace period before counting callbacks. With this change, in the above failure scenario CPU 0 would know not to prematurely end the shrink operation because the grace period would not have completed before the count operation started. [ paulmck: Adjust grace-period end rather than adding RCU reader. ] [ paulmck: Avoid spurious WARN_ON_ONCE() with ->percpu_dequeue_lim check. ] Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
The synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() function invokes rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
to wait one rude RCU-tasks grace period. The rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
function in turn checks if there is only a single online CPU. If so, it
will immediately return, because a call to synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude()
is by definition a grace period on a single-CPU system. (We could
have blocked!)
Unfortunately, this check uses num_online_cpus() without synchronization,
which can result in too-short grace periods. To see this, consider the
following scenario:
CPU0 CPU1 (going offline)
migration/1 task:
cpu_stopper_thread
-> take_cpu_down
-> _cpu_disable
(dec __num_online_cpus)
->cpuhp_invoke_callback
preempt_disable
access old_data0
task1
del old_data0 .....
synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude()
task1 schedule out
....
task2 schedule in
rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp()
->__num_online_cpus == 1
->return
....
task1 schedule in
->free old_data0
preempt_enable
When CPU1 decrements __num_online_cpus, its value becomes 1. However,
CPU1 has not finished going offline, and will take one last trip through
the scheduler and the idle loop before it actually stops executing
instructions. Because synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() is mostly used for
tracing, and because both the scheduler and the idle loop can be traced,
this means that CPU0's prematurely ended grace period might disrupt the
tracing on CPU1. Given that this disruption might include CPU1 executing
instructions in memory that was just now freed (and maybe reallocated),
this is a matter of some concern.
This commit therefore removes that problematic single-CPU check from the
rcu_tasks_rude_wait_gp() function. This dispenses with the single-CPU
optimization, but there is no evidence indicating that this optimization
is important. In addition, synchronize_rcu_tasks_generic() contains a
similar optimization (albeit only for early boot), which also splats.
(As in exactly why are you invoking synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() so
early in boot, anyway???)
It is OK for the synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() function's check to be
unsynchronized because the only times that this check can evaluate to
true is when there is only a single CPU running with preemption
disabled.
While in the area, this commit also fixes a minor bug in which a
call to synchronize_rcu_tasks_rude() would instead be attributed to
synchronize_rcu_tasks().
[ paulmck: Add "synchronize_" prefix and "()" suffix. ]
Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
RCU Tasks and PID-namespace unshare can interact in do_exit() in a
complicated circular dependency:
1) TASK A calls unshare(CLONE_NEWPID), this creates a new PID namespace
that every subsequent child of TASK A will belong to. But TASK A
doesn't itself belong to that new PID namespace.
2) TASK A forks() and creates TASK B. TASK A stays attached to its PID
namespace (let's say PID_NS1) and TASK B is the first task belonging
to the new PID namespace created by unshare() (let's call it PID_NS2).
3) Since TASK B is the first task attached to PID_NS2, it becomes the
PID_NS2 child reaper.
4) TASK A forks() again and creates TASK C which get attached to PID_NS2.
Note how TASK C has TASK A as a parent (belonging to PID_NS1) but has
TASK B (belonging to PID_NS2) as a pid_namespace child_reaper.
5) TASK B exits and since it is the child reaper for PID_NS2, it has to
kill all other tasks attached to PID_NS2, and wait for all of them to
die before getting reaped itself (zap_pid_ns_process()).
6) TASK A calls synchronize_rcu_tasks() which leads to
synchronize_srcu(&tasks_rcu_exit_srcu).
7) TASK B is waiting for TASK C to get reaped. But TASK B is under a
tasks_rcu_exit_srcu SRCU critical section (exit_notify() is between
exit_tasks_rcu_start() and exit_tasks_rcu_finish()), blocking TASK A.
8) TASK C exits and since TASK A is its parent, it waits for it to reap
TASK C, but it can't because TASK A waits for TASK B that waits for
TASK C.
Pid_namespace semantics can hardly be changed at this point. But the
coverage of tasks_rcu_exit_srcu can be reduced instead.
The current task is assumed not to be concurrently reapable at this
stage of exit_notify() and therefore tasks_rcu_exit_srcu can be
temporarily relaxed without breaking its constraints, providing a way
out of the deadlock scenario.
[ paulmck: Fix build failure by adding additional declaration. ]
Fixes: 3f95aa81d265 ("rcu: Make TASKS_RCU handle tasks that are almost done exiting")
Reported-by: Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>
Suggested-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Suggested-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <quic_neeraju@quicinc.com>
Suggested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric W . Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>