| Message ID | 20190711234401.220336-2-joel@joelfernandes.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Harden list_for_each_entry_rcu() and family | expand |
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list > traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or > other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be > passed to make the checks pass. > > Existing list_for_each_entry_rcu() invocations don't need to pass the > optional fourth argument (cond) unless they are under some non-RCU > protection and needs to make lockdep check pass. > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > --- > include/linux/rculist.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 7 +++++++ > kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug | 11 +++++++++++ > kernel/rcu/update.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h > index e91ec9ddcd30..78c15ec6b2c9 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rculist.h > +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h > @@ -40,6 +40,23 @@ static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(struct list_head *list) > */ > #define list_next_rcu(list) (*((struct list_head __rcu **)(&(list)->next))) > > +/* > + * Check during list traversal that we are within an RCU reader > + */ > + > +#define SIXTH_ARG(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, ...) a6 > +#define COUNT_VARGS(...) SIXTH_ARG(dummy, ## __VA_ARGS__, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0) Fyi, I made a cosmetic change by deleting the above 2 unused macros. - Joel
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list > traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or > other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be > passed to make the checks pass. > > Existing list_for_each_entry_rcu() invocations don't need to pass the > optional fourth argument (cond) unless they are under some non-RCU > protection and needs to make lockdep check pass. > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > --- > include/linux/rculist.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 7 +++++++ > kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug | 11 +++++++++++ > kernel/rcu/update.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h > index e91ec9ddcd30..78c15ec6b2c9 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rculist.h > +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h > @@ -40,6 +40,23 @@ static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(struct list_head *list) > */ > #define list_next_rcu(list) (*((struct list_head __rcu **)(&(list)->next))) > > +/* > + * Check during list traversal that we are within an RCU reader > + */ > + > +#define SIXTH_ARG(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, ...) a6 > +#define COUNT_VARGS(...) SIXTH_ARG(dummy, ## __VA_ARGS__, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0) You don't seem to actually use it in this patch; also linux/kernel.h has COUNT_ARGS().
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > +{ > + int lockdep_opinion = 0; > + > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > + return 1; > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) > + return 0; > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > + return 0; > + > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) you forgot debug_locks here. > + return 1; > + > + /* BH flavor */ > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire condition is superfluous, see below. > + return 1; > + > + /* Sched flavor */ > + if (debug_locks) > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); that !preemptible() turns into: !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled()) which is: preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled() and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq(). > +} So maybe something lke: if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))) return true; return !preemptible();
On 07/11, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) rcu_sync_is_idle() wants it. You have my ack in advance ;) Oleg.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:12:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/11, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > rcu_sync_is_idle() wants it. You have my ack in advance ;) Cool, thanks ;) - Joel
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:01:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list > > traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or > > other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be > > passed to make the checks pass. > > > > Existing list_for_each_entry_rcu() invocations don't need to pass the > > optional fourth argument (cond) unless they are under some non-RCU > > protection and needs to make lockdep check pass. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> > > --- > > include/linux/rculist.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > include/linux/rcupdate.h | 7 +++++++ > > kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug | 11 +++++++++++ > > kernel/rcu/update.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h > > index e91ec9ddcd30..78c15ec6b2c9 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/rculist.h > > +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h > > @@ -40,6 +40,23 @@ static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(struct list_head *list) > > */ > > #define list_next_rcu(list) (*((struct list_head __rcu **)(&(list)->next))) > > > > +/* > > + * Check during list traversal that we are within an RCU reader > > + */ > > + > > +#define SIXTH_ARG(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, ...) a6 > > +#define COUNT_VARGS(...) SIXTH_ARG(dummy, ## __VA_ARGS__, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0) > > You don't seem to actually use it in this patch; also linux/kernel.h has > COUNT_ARGS(). Yes, I replied after sending patches that I fixed this. I will remove them. thanks, - Joel
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > +{ > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > + > > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > + return 1; > > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > + return 0; > > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > + return 0; > > + > > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > you forgot debug_locks here. Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not get to this point. > > + return 1; > > + > > + /* BH flavor */ > > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire > condition is superfluous, see below. > > > + return 1; > > + > > + /* Sched flavor */ > > + if (debug_locks) > > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > that !preemptible() turns into: > > !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled()) > > which is: > > preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled() > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq(). > > > +} > > So maybe something lke: > > if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))) > return true; Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like: ---8<----------------------- diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) { - int lockdep_opinion = 0; - if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) return 1; if (!rcu_is_watching()) return 0; if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) return 0; - - /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ - if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) - return 1; - - /* BH flavor */ - if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) - return 1; - - /* Sched flavor */ - if (debug_locks) - lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); - return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)) + return 1; + return !preemptible(); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_any_held);
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like: > > ---8<----------------------- > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); > > int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > { > if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > return 1; > if (!rcu_is_watching()) > return 0; > if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > return 0; > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)) > + return 1; > + return !preemptible(); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_any_held); OK, that looks sane. Thanks!
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > +{ > > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > + > > > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > + return 1; > > > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > + return 0; > > > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > + return 0; > > > + > > > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > > you forgot debug_locks here. > > Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If > debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not > get to this point. > > > > + return 1; > > > + > > > + /* BH flavor */ > > > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire > > condition is superfluous, see below. > > > > > + return 1; > > > + > > > + /* Sched flavor */ > > > + if (debug_locks) > > > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > > that !preemptible() turns into: > > > > !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled()) > > > > which is: > > > > preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled() > > > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq(). > > > > > +} > > > > So maybe something lke: > > > > if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || > > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))) > > return true; > > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like: > > ---8<----------------------- > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); > > int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > { > - int lockdep_opinion = 0; > - > if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > return 1; > if (!rcu_is_watching()) > return 0; > if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > return 0; > - > - /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > - if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > - return 1; > - > - /* BH flavor */ > - if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > - return 1; > - > - /* Sched flavor */ > - if (debug_locks) > - lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > - return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)) OK, I will bite... Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)? Thanx, Paul > + return 1; > + return !preemptible(); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_any_held); > >
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > > +{ > > > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > > + > > > > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > > + return 1; > > > > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > > + return 0; > > > > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > > + return 0; > > > > + > > > > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > > > > you forgot debug_locks here. > > > > Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If > > debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not > > get to this point. > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > + > > > > + /* BH flavor */ > > > > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire > > > condition is superfluous, see below. > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > + > > > > + /* Sched flavor */ > > > > + if (debug_locks) > > > > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > > > > that !preemptible() turns into: > > > > > > !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > which is: > > > > > > preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled() > > > > > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq(). > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > So maybe something lke: > > > > > > if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))) > > > return true; > > > > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like: > > > > ---8<----------------------- > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); > > > > int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > { > > - int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > - > > if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > return 1; > > if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > return 0; > > if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > return 0; > > - > > - /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > - if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > - return 1; > > - > > - /* BH flavor */ > > - if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > - return 1; > > - > > - /* Sched flavor */ > > - if (debug_locks) > > - lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > - return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)) > > OK, I will bite... Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)? Hmm, I was borrowing the strategy from rcu_read_lock_bh_held() which does not check for a lock held in this map. Honestly, even lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map) seems unnecessary per-se since !preemptible() will catch that? rcu_read_lock_sched() disables preemption already, so lockdep's opinion of the matter seems redundant there. Sorry I already sent out patches again before seeing your comment but I can rework and resend them based on any other suggestions. thanks, - Joel
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > > > + > > > > > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > > > > > > you forgot debug_locks here. > > > > > > Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If > > > debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not > > > get to this point. > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* BH flavor */ > > > > > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire > > > > condition is superfluous, see below. > > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Sched flavor */ > > > > > + if (debug_locks) > > > > > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > > > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > > > > > > that !preemptible() turns into: > > > > > > > > !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > > > which is: > > > > > > > > preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled() > > > > > > > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq(). > > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > So maybe something lke: > > > > > > > > if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || > > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))) > > > > return true; > > > > > > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like: > > > > > > ---8<----------------------- > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); > > > > > > int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > { > > > - int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > - > > > if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > return 1; > > > if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > return 0; > > > if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > return 0; > > > - > > > - /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > - if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > - return 1; > > > - > > > - /* BH flavor */ > > > - if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > - return 1; > > > - > > > - /* Sched flavor */ > > > - if (debug_locks) > > > - lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > - return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)) > > > > OK, I will bite... Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)? > > Hmm, I was borrowing the strategy from rcu_read_lock_bh_held() which does not > check for a lock held in this map. > > Honestly, even lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map) seems unnecessary per-se > since !preemptible() will catch that? rcu_read_lock_sched() disables > preemption already, so lockdep's opinion of the matter seems redundant there. Good point! At least as long as the lockdep splats list RCU-bh among the locks held, which they did last I checked. Of course, you could make the same argument for getting rid of rcu_sched_lock_map. Does it make sense to have the one without the other? > Sorry I already sent out patches again before seeing your comment but I can > rework and resend them based on any other suggestions. Not a problem! Thax, Paul
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > > > > > > > > you forgot debug_locks here. > > > > > > > > Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If > > > > debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not > > > > get to this point. > > > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /* BH flavor */ > > > > > > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire > > > > > condition is superfluous, see below. > > > > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /* Sched flavor */ > > > > > > + if (debug_locks) > > > > > > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > > > > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > > > > > > > > that !preemptible() turns into: > > > > > > > > > > !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > > > > > which is: > > > > > > > > > > preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled() > > > > > > > > > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq(). > > > > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > So maybe something lke: > > > > > > > > > > if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || > > > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))) > > > > > return true; > > > > > > > > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like: > > > > > > > > ---8<----------------------- > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); > > > > > > > > int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > > { > > > > - int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > > - > > > > if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > > return 1; > > > > if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > > return 0; > > > > if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > > return 0; > > > > - > > > > - /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > > - if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > > - return 1; > > > > - > > > > - /* BH flavor */ > > > > - if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > - return 1; > > > > - > > > > - /* Sched flavor */ > > > > - if (debug_locks) > > > > - lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > > - return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)) > > > > > > OK, I will bite... Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)? > > > > Hmm, I was borrowing the strategy from rcu_read_lock_bh_held() which does not > > check for a lock held in this map. > > > > Honestly, even lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map) seems unnecessary per-se > > since !preemptible() will catch that? rcu_read_lock_sched() disables > > preemption already, so lockdep's opinion of the matter seems redundant there. > > Good point! At least as long as the lockdep splats list RCU-bh among > the locks held, which they did last I checked. > > Of course, you could make the same argument for getting rid of > rcu_sched_lock_map. Does it make sense to have the one without > the other? It probably makes it inconsistent in the least. I will add the check for the rcu_bh_lock_map in a separate patch, if that's Ok with you - since I also want to update the rcu_read_lock_bh_held() logic in the same patch. That rcu_read_lock_bh_held() could also just return !preemptible as Peter suggested for the bh case. > > Sorry I already sent out patches again before seeing your comment but I can > > rework and resend them based on any other suggestions. > > Not a problem! Thanks. Depending on whether there is any other feedback, I will work on the bh_ stuff as a separate patch on top of this series, or work it into the next series revision if I'm reposting. Hopefully that sounds Ok to you. thanks, - Joel
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 03:40:40PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 10:46:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:06:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:45:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 01:11:25PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:43:56PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > > > > +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > > + if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > > > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > > > > > > > > > > you forgot debug_locks here. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it turns out debug_locks checking is not even needed. If > > > > > debug_locks == 0, then debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled() returns 0 and we would not > > > > > get to this point. > > > > > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + /* BH flavor */ > > > > > > > + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I'd put irqs_disabled() under BH, also this entire > > > > > > condition is superfluous, see below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > + return 1; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + /* Sched flavor */ > > > > > > > + if (debug_locks) > > > > > > > + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > > > > > + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > > > > > > > > > > that !preemptible() turns into: > > > > > > > > > > > > !(preempt_count()==0 && !irqs_disabled()) > > > > > > > > > > > > which is: > > > > > > > > > > > > preempt_count() != 0 || irqs_disabled() > > > > > > > > > > > > and already includes irqs_disabled() and in_softirq(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > > > So maybe something lke: > > > > > > > > > > > > if (debug_locks && (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || > > > > > > lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map))) > > > > > > return true; > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, I will do it this way (without the debug_locks) like: > > > > > > > > > > ---8<----------------------- > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > > > index ba861d1716d3..339aebc330db 100644 > > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c > > > > > @@ -296,27 +296,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); > > > > > > > > > > int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) > > > > > { > > > > > - int lockdep_opinion = 0; > > > > > - > > > > > if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) > > > > > return 1; > > > > > if (!rcu_is_watching()) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) > > > > > return 0; > > > > > - > > > > > - /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ > > > > > - if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) > > > > > - return 1; > > > > > - > > > > > - /* BH flavor */ > > > > > - if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) > > > > > - return 1; > > > > > - > > > > > - /* Sched flavor */ > > > > > - if (debug_locks) > > > > > - lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); > > > > > - return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); > > > > > + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map) || lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map)) > > > > > > > > OK, I will bite... Why not also lock_is_held(&rcu_bh_lock_map)? > > > > > > Hmm, I was borrowing the strategy from rcu_read_lock_bh_held() which does not > > > check for a lock held in this map. > > > > > > Honestly, even lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map) seems unnecessary per-se > > > since !preemptible() will catch that? rcu_read_lock_sched() disables > > > preemption already, so lockdep's opinion of the matter seems redundant there. > > > > Good point! At least as long as the lockdep splats list RCU-bh among > > the locks held, which they did last I checked. > > > > Of course, you could make the same argument for getting rid of > > rcu_sched_lock_map. Does it make sense to have the one without > > the other? > > It probably makes it inconsistent in the least. I will add the check for > the rcu_bh_lock_map in a separate patch, if that's Ok with you - since I also > want to update the rcu_read_lock_bh_held() logic in the same patch. > > That rcu_read_lock_bh_held() could also just return !preemptible as Peter > suggested for the bh case. Although that seems reasonable, please check the call sites. > > > Sorry I already sent out patches again before seeing your comment but I can > > > rework and resend them based on any other suggestions. > > > > Not a problem! > > Thanks. Depending on whether there is any other feedback, I will work on the > bh_ stuff as a separate patch on top of this series, or work it into the next > series revision if I'm reposting. Hopefully that sounds Ok to you. Agreed -- let's separate concerns. And promote bisectability. Thanx, Paul
diff --git a/include/linux/rculist.h b/include/linux/rculist.h index e91ec9ddcd30..78c15ec6b2c9 100644 --- a/include/linux/rculist.h +++ b/include/linux/rculist.h @@ -40,6 +40,23 @@ static inline void INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(struct list_head *list) */ #define list_next_rcu(list) (*((struct list_head __rcu **)(&(list)->next))) +/* + * Check during list traversal that we are within an RCU reader + */ + +#define SIXTH_ARG(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5, a6, ...) a6 +#define COUNT_VARGS(...) SIXTH_ARG(dummy, ## __VA_ARGS__, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0) + +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST +#define __list_check_rcu(dummy, cond, ...) \ + ({ \ + RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \ + "RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!"); \ + }) +#else +#define __list_check_rcu(dummy, cond, ...) ({}) +#endif + /* * Insert a new entry between two known consecutive entries. * @@ -348,9 +365,10 @@ static inline void list_splice_tail_init_rcu(struct list_head *list, * the _rcu list-mutation primitives such as list_add_rcu() * as long as the traversal is guarded by rcu_read_lock(). */ -#define list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \ - for (pos = list_entry_rcu((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member); \ - &pos->member != (head); \ +#define list_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member, cond...) \ + for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \ + pos = list_entry_rcu((head)->next, typeof(*pos), member); \ + &pos->member != (head); \ pos = list_entry_rcu(pos->member.next, typeof(*pos), member)) /** @@ -621,8 +639,9 @@ static inline void hlist_add_behind_rcu(struct hlist_node *n, * the _rcu list-mutation primitives such as hlist_add_head_rcu() * as long as the traversal is guarded by rcu_read_lock(). */ -#define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \ - for (pos = hlist_entry_safe (rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_first_rcu(head)),\ +#define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member, cond...) \ + for (__list_check_rcu(dummy, ## cond, 0), \ + pos = hlist_entry_safe (rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_first_rcu(head)),\ typeof(*(pos)), member); \ pos; \ pos = hlist_entry_safe(rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_next_rcu(\ diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h index 922bb6848813..712b464ab960 100644 --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h @@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ int debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled(void); int rcu_read_lock_held(void); int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void); int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void); +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void); #else /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */ @@ -243,6 +244,12 @@ static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void) { return !preemptible(); } + +static inline int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) +{ + return !preemptible(); +} + #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */ #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU diff --git a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug index 0ec7d1d33a14..b20d0e2903d1 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug +++ b/kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug @@ -7,6 +7,17 @@ menu "RCU Debugging" config PROVE_RCU def_bool PROVE_LOCKING +config PROVE_RCU_LIST + bool "RCU list lockdep debugging" + depends on PROVE_RCU + default n + help + Enable RCU lockdep checking for list usages. By default it is + turned off since there are several list RCU users that still + need to be converted to pass a lockdep expression. To prevent + false-positive splats, we keep it default disabled but once all + users are converted, we can remove this config option. + config TORTURE_TEST tristate default n diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c index c3bf44ba42e5..9cb30006a5e1 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/update.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c @@ -298,6 +298,32 @@ int rcu_read_lock_bh_held(void) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_bh_held); +int rcu_read_lock_any_held(void) +{ + int lockdep_opinion = 0; + + if (!debug_lockdep_rcu_enabled()) + return 1; + if (!rcu_is_watching()) + return 0; + if (!rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()) + return 0; + + /* Preemptible RCU flavor */ + if (lock_is_held(&rcu_lock_map)) + return 1; + + /* BH flavor */ + if (in_softirq() || irqs_disabled()) + return 1; + + /* Sched flavor */ + if (debug_locks) + lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map); + return lockdep_opinion || !preemptible(); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_read_lock_any_held); + #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC */ /**
This patch adds support for checking RCU reader sections in list traversal macros. Optionally, if the list macro is called under SRCU or other lock/mutex protection, then appropriate lockdep expressions can be passed to make the checks pass. Existing list_for_each_entry_rcu() invocations don't need to pass the optional fourth argument (cond) unless they are under some non-RCU protection and needs to make lockdep check pass. Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> --- include/linux/rculist.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----- include/linux/rcupdate.h | 7 +++++++ kernel/rcu/Kconfig.debug | 11 +++++++++++ kernel/rcu/update.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)