FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rcu: Do RCU GP kthread self-wakeup from softirq and interrupt" failed to apply to 5.0-stable tree
The patch below does not apply to the 5.0-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 1d1f898df6586c5ea9aeaf349f13089c6fa37903 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 06:55:01 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Do RCU GP kthread self-wakeup from softirq and interrupt
The rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function is invoked when it might be necessary to wake the RCU grace-period kthread. Because self-wakeups are normally a useless waste of CPU cycles, if rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from this kthread, it naturally refuses to do the wakeup.
Unfortunately, natural though it might be, this heuristic fails when rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from an interrupt or softirq handler that interrupted the grace-period kthread just after the final check of the wait-event condition but just before the schedule() call. In this case, a wakeup is required, even though the call to rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is within the RCU grace-period kthread's context. Failing to provide this wakeup can result in grace periods failing to start, which in turn results in out-of-memory conditions.
This race window is quite narrow, but it actually did happen during real testing. It would of course need to be fixed even if it was strictly theoretical in nature.
This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to earlier kernel versions.
Fixes: 48a7639ce80c ("rcu: Make callers awaken grace-period kthread") Reported-by: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Co-developed-by: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Co-developed-by: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Co-developed-by: "xiao, jin" jin.xiao@intel.com Co-developed-by: Bai, Jie A jie.a.bai@intel.com Signed-off: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Signed-off: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Signed-off: "xiao, jin" jin.xiao@intel.com Signed-off: Bai, Jie A jie.a.bai@intel.com Signed-off-by: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com [ paulmck: Switch from !in_softirq() to "!in_interrupt() && !in_serving_softirq() to avoid redundant wakeups and to also handle the interrupt-handler scenario as well as the softirq-handler scenario that actually occurred in testing. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney paulmck@linux.ibm.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CD6925E8781EFD4D8E11882D20FC406D52A11F61@SHSMSX104...
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 9ceb93f848cd..21775eebb8f0 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -1593,15 +1593,23 @@ static bool rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_node *rnp) }
/* - * Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken, and don't - * bother awakening when there is nothing for the grace-period kthread - * to do (as in several CPUs raced to awaken, and we lost), and finally - * don't try to awaken a kthread that has not yet been created. If - * all those checks are passed, track some debug information and awaken. + * Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken (unless in + * an interrupt or softirq handler), and don't bother awakening when there + * is nothing for the grace-period kthread to do (as in several CPUs raced + * to awaken, and we lost), and finally don't try to awaken a kthread that + * has not yet been created. If all those checks are passed, track some + * debug information and awaken. + * + * So why do the self-wakeup when in an interrupt or softirq handler + * in the grace-period kthread's context? Because the kthread might have + * been interrupted just as it was going to sleep, and just after the final + * pre-sleep check of the awaken condition. In this case, a wakeup really + * is required, and is therefore supplied. */ static void rcu_gp_kthread_wake(void) { - if (current == rcu_state.gp_kthread || + if ((current == rcu_state.gp_kthread && + !in_interrupt() && !in_serving_softirq()) || !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) || !rcu_state.gp_kthread) return;
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 06:43:02PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 5.0-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
Hello, Greg,
"This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to earlier kernel versions." ;-)
Bo, Jin, Jie, would any of you be interested in doing the backports? I would of course be happy to review them.
Thanx, Paul
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 1d1f898df6586c5ea9aeaf349f13089c6fa37903 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 06:55:01 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] rcu: Do RCU GP kthread self-wakeup from softirq and interrupt
The rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function is invoked when it might be necessary to wake the RCU grace-period kthread. Because self-wakeups are normally a useless waste of CPU cycles, if rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from this kthread, it naturally refuses to do the wakeup.
Unfortunately, natural though it might be, this heuristic fails when rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from an interrupt or softirq handler that interrupted the grace-period kthread just after the final check of the wait-event condition but just before the schedule() call. In this case, a wakeup is required, even though the call to rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is within the RCU grace-period kthread's context. Failing to provide this wakeup can result in grace periods failing to start, which in turn results in out-of-memory conditions.
This race window is quite narrow, but it actually did happen during real testing. It would of course need to be fixed even if it was strictly theoretical in nature.
This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to earlier kernel versions.
Fixes: 48a7639ce80c ("rcu: Make callers awaken grace-period kthread") Reported-by: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Co-developed-by: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Co-developed-by: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Co-developed-by: "xiao, jin" jin.xiao@intel.com Co-developed-by: Bai, Jie A jie.a.bai@intel.com Signed-off: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Signed-off: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Signed-off: "xiao, jin" jin.xiao@intel.com Signed-off: Bai, Jie A jie.a.bai@intel.com Signed-off-by: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com [ paulmck: Switch from !in_softirq() to "!in_interrupt() && !in_serving_softirq() to avoid redundant wakeups and to also handle the interrupt-handler scenario as well as the softirq-handler scenario that actually occurred in testing. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney paulmck@linux.ibm.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CD6925E8781EFD4D8E11882D20FC406D52A11F61@SHSMSX104...
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 9ceb93f848cd..21775eebb8f0 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -1593,15 +1593,23 @@ static bool rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_node *rnp) } /*
- Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken, and don't
- bother awakening when there is nothing for the grace-period kthread
- to do (as in several CPUs raced to awaken, and we lost), and finally
- don't try to awaken a kthread that has not yet been created. If
- all those checks are passed, track some debug information and awaken.
- Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken (unless in
- an interrupt or softirq handler), and don't bother awakening when there
- is nothing for the grace-period kthread to do (as in several CPUs raced
- to awaken, and we lost), and finally don't try to awaken a kthread that
- has not yet been created. If all those checks are passed, track some
- debug information and awaken.
- So why do the self-wakeup when in an interrupt or softirq handler
- in the grace-period kthread's context? Because the kthread might have
- been interrupted just as it was going to sleep, and just after the final
- pre-sleep check of the awaken condition. In this case, a wakeup really
*/
- is required, and is therefore supplied.
static void rcu_gp_kthread_wake(void) {
- if (current == rcu_state.gp_kthread ||
- if ((current == rcu_state.gp_kthread &&
!in_interrupt() && !in_serving_softirq()) || !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) || !rcu_state.gp_kthread)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 06:43:02PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 5.0-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
Hello, Greg,
"This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to earlier kernel versions." ;-)
I know, that's why I sent out these emails to remind people about it :)
Bo, Jin, Jie, would any of you be interested in doing the backports? I would of course be happy to review them.
That would be most wonderful, thanks!
greg k-h
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 07:27:47PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 06:43:02PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 5.0-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
Hello, Greg,
"This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to earlier kernel versions." ;-)
I know, that's why I sent out these emails to remind people about it :)
Fair enough! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Bo, Jin, Jie, would any of you be interested in doing the backports? I would of course be happy to review them.
That would be most wonderful, thanks!
greg k-h
sure, we have backported the patch to lts4.19 in intel local branch, and will also send out the backport patches for other LTS.
-----Original Message----- From: Paul E. McKenney paulmck@linux.ibm.com Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 2:34 AM To: Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Zhang, Jun jun.zhang@intel.com; He, Bo bo.he@intel.com; Bai, Jie A jie.a.bai@intel.com; Xiao, Jin jin.xiao@intel.com; stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] rcu: Do RCU GP kthread self-wakeup from softirq and interrupt" failed to apply to 5.0-stable tree
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 07:27:47PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:10:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 06:43:02PM +0100, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 5.0-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to stable@vger.kernel.org.
Hello, Greg,
"This patch does not Cc stable because it does not apply cleanly to earlier kernel versions." ;-)
I know, that's why I sent out these emails to remind people about it :)
Fair enough! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
Bo, Jin, Jie, would any of you be interested in doing the backports? I would of course be happy to review them.
That would be most wonderful, thanks!
greg k-h
The rcu_gp_kthread_wake() function is invoked when it might be necessary to wake the RCU grace-period kthread. Because self-wakeups are normally a useless waste of CPU cycles, if rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from this kthread, it naturally refuses to do the wakeup.
Unfortunately, natural though it might be, this heuristic fails when rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is invoked from an interrupt or softirq handler that interrupted the grace-period kthread just after the final check of the wait-event condition but just before the schedule() call. In this case, a wakeup is required, even though the call to rcu_gp_kthread_wake() is within the RCU grace-period kthread's context. Failing to provide this wakeup can result in grace periods failing to start, which in turn results in out-of-memory conditions.
This race window is quite narrow, but it actually did happen during real testing. It would of course need to be fixed even if it was strictly theoretical in nature.
[ backport for 5.0 commit 1d1f898df6586c5ea9aeaf349f13089c6fa37903 upstream. ]
Fixes: 48a7639ce80c ("rcu: Make callers awaken grace-period kthread") Reported-by: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Co-developed-by: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Co-developed-by: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Co-developed-by: "xiao, jin" jin.xiao@intel.com Co-developed-by: Bai, Jie A jie.a.bai@intel.com Signed-off: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com Signed-off: "He, Bo" bo.he@intel.com Signed-off: "xiao, jin" jin.xiao@intel.com Signed-off: Bai, Jie A jie.a.bai@intel.com Signed-off-by: "Zhang, Jun" jun.zhang@intel.com [ paulmck: Switch from !in_softirq() to "!in_interrupt() && !in_serving_softirq() to avoid redundant wakeups and to also handle the interrupt-handler scenario as well as the softirq-handler scenario that actually occurred in testing. ] Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney paulmck@linux.ibm.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CD6925E8781EFD4D8E11882D20FC406D52A11F61@SHSMSX104... --- kernel/rcu/tree.c | 19 ++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c index 9180158756d2..38d44d27e37a 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c @@ -1557,14 +1557,23 @@ static bool rcu_future_gp_cleanup(struct rcu_node *rnp) }
/* - * Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken, and don't - * bother awakening when there is nothing for the grace-period kthread - * to do (as in several CPUs raced to awaken, and we lost), and finally - * don't try to awaken a kthread that has not yet been created. + * Awaken the grace-period kthread. Don't do a self-awaken (unless in + * an interrupt or softirq handler), and don't bother awakening when there + * is nothing for the grace-period kthread to do (as in several CPUs raced + * to awaken, and we lost), and finally don't try to awaken a kthread that + * has not yet been created. If all those checks are passed, track some + * debug information and awaken. + * + * So why do the self-wakeup when in an interrupt or softirq handler + * in the grace-period kthread's context? Because the kthread might have + * been interrupted just as it was going to sleep, and just after the final + * pre-sleep check of the awaken condition. In this case, a wakeup really + * is required, and is therefore supplied. */ static void rcu_gp_kthread_wake(void) { - if (current == rcu_state.gp_kthread || + if ((current == rcu_state.gp_kthread && + !in_interrupt() && !in_serving_softirq()) || !READ_ONCE(rcu_state.gp_flags) || !rcu_state.gp_kthread) return;
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Greg KH -
gregkh＠linuxfoundation.org
-
He, Bo -
Paul E. McKenney