From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D23C433E0 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 03:34:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663B420772 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 03:34:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1591241652; bh=gt4qqSNeMEPnaSAiYD6PO8BVbCUAl+iOh1hthwO2Yz4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID: From; b=x0VVaqOeOelPu4y9jTudPcSj6Y+6/ZRrrHF7xCNN3ZhpBHOEMv6MovNxq+/uOxxOk C58b+UtvozopMcHa5BCk0t4J2GU7s4MJUOFERufXFtt0j63Epf7yEr6nocgRU10ADh yt6Pp2UYYNNtnIYGK9lOk7ofp7TwT0O7KWuj5ufQ= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727783AbgFDDeL (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2020 23:34:11 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:32812 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726186AbgFDDeK (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2020 23:34:10 -0400 Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (50-39-105-78.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.105.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE42C206DC; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 03:34:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1591241649; bh=gt4qqSNeMEPnaSAiYD6PO8BVbCUAl+iOh1hthwO2Yz4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=F8kKGoeQMHCcStKwKTGmR7SlI1ffeGcY5BuLwHDRWXMq5aFmzGmAFFPD4I03Tt2in MOEnf8DRvgjP9aGZVWObC9bFo2kZbwy39dMUSWSkp1NN9er6fo5NAN4K4Lw8PkvISK Jd7+gVFYKPdQ3+kTL5V+OXsL/c45wDep2PyPFWCY= Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B2EDE3522946; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:34:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2020 20:34:09 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, elver@google.com, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org, dvyukov@google.com, glider@google.com, andreyknvl@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] rcu: Fixup noinstr warnings Message-ID: <20200604033409.GX29598@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20200603114014.152292216@infradead.org> <20200603114051.896465666@infradead.org> <20200603164600.GQ29598@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200603171320.GE2570@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200603171320.GE2570@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 07:13:20PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 09:46:00AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > > > @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ static noinstr void rcu_dynticks_eqs_ent > > > * next idle sojourn. > > > */ > > > rcu_dynticks_task_trace_enter(); // Before ->dynticks update! > > > - seq = atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > + seq = arch_atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > To preserve KCSAN's ability to see this, there would be something like > > instrument_atomic_write(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)) prior > > to the instrumentation_end() invoked before rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter() > > in each of rcu_eqs_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit(), correct? > > Yes. > > > > // RCU is no longer watching. Better be in extended quiescent state! > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG) && > > > (seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR)); > > > @@ -274,13 +274,13 @@ static noinstr void rcu_dynticks_eqs_exi > > > * and we also must force ordering with the next RCU read-side > > > * critical section. > > > */ > > > - seq = atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > + seq = arch_atomic_add_return(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > And same here, but after the instrumentation_begin() following > > rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit() in both rcu_eqs_exit() and rcu_nmi_enter(), > > correct? > > Yep. > > > > // RCU is now watching. Better not be in an extended quiescent state! > > > rcu_dynticks_task_trace_exit(); // After ->dynticks update! > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RCU_EQS_DEBUG) && > > > !(seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR)); > > > if (seq & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK) { > > > - atomic_andnot(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK, &rdp->dynticks); > > > + arch_atomic_andnot(RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_MASK, &rdp->dynticks); > > > > This one is gone in -rcu. > > Good, because that would make things 'complicated' with the external > instrumentation call. And is actually the reason I didn't even attempt > it this time around. > > > > smp_mb__after_atomic(); /* _exit after clearing mask. */ > > > } > > > } > > > @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ static __always_inline bool rcu_dynticks > > > { > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > > > > - return !(atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks) & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR); > > > + return !(arch_atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks) & RCU_DYNTICK_CTRL_CTR); > > The above is actually instrumented by KCSAN, due to arch_atomic_read() > being a READ_ONCE() and it now understanding volatile. > > > Also instrument_atomic_write(&rdp->dynticks, sizeof(rdp->dynticks)) as Right, this should instead be instrument_read(...). Though if KCSAN is unconditionally instrumenting volatile, how does this help? Or does KCSAN's instrumentation of volatile somehow avoid causing trouble? > > follows: > > > > o rcu_nmi_exit(): After each following instrumentation_begin(). > > Yes > > > o In theory in rcu_irq_exit_preempt(), but as this generates code > > only in lockdep builds, it might not be worth worrying about. > > > > o Ditto for rcu_irq_exit_check_preempt(). > > > > o Ditto for __rcu_irq_enter_check_tick(). > > Not these, afaict they're all the above arch_atomic_read(), which is > instrumented due to volatile in these cases. > > > o rcu_nmi_enter(): After each following instrumentation_begin(). > > Yes > > > o __rcu_is_watching() is itself noinstr: > > > > o idtentry_enter_cond_rcu(): After each following > > instrumentation_begin(). > > > > o rcu_is_watching(): Either before or after the call to > > rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs(). > > Something like that yes. > > > > } > > > > > > /* > > > @@ -692,6 +692,7 @@ noinstr void rcu_nmi_exit(void) > > > { > > > struct rcu_data *rdp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_data); > > > > > > + instrumentation_begin(); > > > /* > > > * Check for ->dynticks_nmi_nesting underflow and bad ->dynticks. > > > * (We are exiting an NMI handler, so RCU better be paying attention > > > @@ -705,7 +706,6 @@ noinstr void rcu_nmi_exit(void) > > > * leave it in non-RCU-idle state. > > > */ > > > if (rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1) { > > > - instrumentation_begin(); > > > trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("--="), rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting - 2, > > > atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks)); > > > WRITE_ONCE(rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, /* No store tearing. */ > > > @@ -714,7 +714,6 @@ noinstr void rcu_nmi_exit(void) > > > return; > > > } > > > > > > - instrumentation_begin(); > > > /* This NMI interrupted an RCU-idle CPU, restore RCU-idleness. */ > > > trace_rcu_dyntick(TPS("Startirq"), rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, 0, atomic_read(&rdp->dynticks)); > > > WRITE_ONCE(rdp->dynticks_nmi_nesting, 0); /* Avoid store tearing. */ > > > > This one looks to be having no effect on instrumentation of atomics, but > > rather coalescing a pair of instrumentation_begin() into one. > > > > Do I understand correctly? > > Almost, it puts the WARN_ON_ONCE()s under instrumentation_begin() too, > and that makes a differnce, iirc it was the > rcu_dynticks_curr_cpu_in_eqs() call that stood out. But that could've > been before I switched it to arch_atomic_read(). In any case, I find > this form a lot clearer. Got it, thank you. Thanx, Paul