From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
josh@joshtriplett.org, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
edumazet@google.com, dvhart@linux.intel.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
oleg@redhat.com, sbw@mit.edu,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/17] rcu: Allow post-unlock reference for rt_mutex
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:38:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1404772701-8804-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1404772701-8804-1-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
The current approach to RCU priority boosting uses an rt_mutex strictly
for its priority-boosting side effects. The rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked()
function is used by the booster to initialize the lock as held by the
boostee. The booster then uses rt_mutex_lock() to acquire this rt_mutex,
which priority-boosts the boostee. When the boostee reaches the end
of its outermost RCU read-side critical section, it checks a field in
its task structure to see whether it has been boosted, and, if so, uses
rt_mutex_unlock() to release the rt_mutex. The booster can then go on
to boost the next task that is blocking the current RCU grace period.
But reasonable implementations of rt_mutex_unlock() might result in the
boostee referencing the rt_mutex's data after releasing it. But the
booster might have re-initialized the rt_mutex between the time that the
boostee released it and the time that it later referenced it. This is
clearly asking for trouble, so this commit introduces a completion that
forces the booster to wait until the boostee has completely finished with
the rt_mutex, thus avoiding the case where the booster is re-initializing
the rt_mutex before the last boostee's last reference to that rt_mutex.
This of course does introduce some overhead, but the priority-boosting
code paths are miles from any possible fastpath, and the overhead of
executing the completion will normally be quite small compared to the
overhead of priority boosting and deboosting, so this should be OK.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcu/tree.h | 5 +++++
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 8 +++++++-
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.h b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
index 0f69a79c5b7d..3eeb919e26a2 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.h
@@ -172,6 +172,11 @@ struct rcu_node {
/* queued on this rcu_node structure that */
/* are blocking the current grace period, */
/* there can be no such task. */
+ struct completion boost_completion;
+ /* Used to ensure that the rt_mutex used */
+ /* to carry out the boosting is fully */
+ /* released with no future boostee accesses */
+ /* before that rt_mutex is re-initialized. */
unsigned long boost_time;
/* When to start boosting (jiffies). */
struct task_struct *boost_kthread_task;
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 5da9f9b3abc9..9c811879d31e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -427,8 +427,10 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
/* Unboost if we were boosted. */
- if (rbmp)
+ if (rbmp) {
rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);
+ complete(&rnp->boost_completion);
+ }
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
/*
@@ -1202,10 +1204,14 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
+ init_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
+ /* Wait until boostee is done accessing mtx before reinitializing. */
+ wait_for_completion(&rnp->boost_completion);
+
return ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL ||
ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->boost_tasks) != NULL;
}
--
1.8.1.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-07 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-07 22:37 [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] Miscellaneous fixes for 3.17 Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 01/17] rcu: Document deadlock-avoidance information for rcu_read_unlock() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/17] rcu: Handle obsolete references to TINY_PREEMPT_RCU Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 03/17] signal: Explain local_irq_save() call Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 9:01 ` Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-08 15:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 04/17] rcu: Make rcu node arrays static const char * const Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 05/17] rcu: remove redundant ACCESS_ONCE() from tick_do_timer_cpu Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 14:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 06/17] rcu: Eliminate read-modify-write ACCESS_ONCE() calls Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 16:59 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-08 20:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 20:43 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-07-08 21:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 07/17] rcu: Loosen __call_rcu()'s rcu_head alignment constraint Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-07-09 1:50 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 08/17] rcu: Allow post-unlock reference for rt_mutex Lai Jiangshan
2014-07-09 16:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 09/17] rcu: Check both root and current rcu_node when setting up future grace period Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 10/17] rcu: Simplify priority boosting by putting rt_mutex in rcu_node Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 11/17] rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 15:24 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 15:47 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 18:38 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 20:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-08 22:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09 15:40 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 18:10 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 18:25 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 18:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 18:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:08 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 19:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:43 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 19:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 19:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 19:11 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-11 20:35 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-11 20:45 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-07-12 1:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-14 13:52 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 20:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-14 13:53 ` Christoph Lameter
2014-07-11 18:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 12/17] rcu: Don't use NMIs to dump other CPUs' stacks Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 13/17] rcu: Use __this_cpu_read() instead of per_cpu_ptr() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 14/17] rcu: remove CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-08 8:11 ` Paul Bolle
2014-07-08 13:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 15/17] rcu: Fix __rcu_reclaim() to use true/false for bool Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 16/17] rcu: Fix a sparse warning in rcu_initiate_boost() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-07 22:38 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 17/17] rcu: Fix a sparse warning in rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp() Paul E. McKenney
2014-07-09 2:14 ` [PATCH tip/core/rcu 0/17] Miscellaneous fixes for 3.17 Lai Jiangshan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1404772701-8804-8-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sbw@mit.edu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®