lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 0/4] Forbid static SRCU use in modules
----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 10:27 PM, paulmck paulmck@linux.ibm.com wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 09:07:18PM +0000, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 04:41:36PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >
>> > ----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 3:32 PM, Joel Fernandes, Google joel@joelfernandes.org
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 03:26:16PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> > >> ----- On Apr 7, 2019, at 9:59 AM, paulmck paulmck@linux.ibm.com wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > On Sun, Apr 07, 2019 at 06:39:41AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > >> >> On Sat, Apr 06, 2019 at 07:06:13PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > [ . . . ]
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> > > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > >> >> > > b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > >> >> > > index f8f6f04c4453..c2d919a1566e 100644
>> > >> >> > > --- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > >> >> > > +++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
>> > >> >> > > @@ -338,6 +338,10 @@
>> > >> >> > > KEEP(*(__tracepoints_ptrs)) /* Tracepoints: pointer array */ \
>> > >> >> > > __stop___tracepoints_ptrs = .; \
>> > >> >> > > *(__tracepoints_strings)/* Tracepoints: strings */ \
>> > >> >> > > + . = ALIGN(8); \
>> > >> >> > > + __start___srcu_struct = .; \
>> > >> >> > > + *(___srcu_struct_ptrs) \
>> > >> >> > > + __end___srcu_struct = .; \
>> > >> >> > > } \
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > This vmlinux linker modification is not needed. I tested without it and srcu
>> > >> >> > torture works fine with rcutorture built as a module. Putting further prints
>> > >> >> > in kernel/module.c verified that the kernel is able to find the srcu structs
>> > >> >> > just fine. You could squash the below patch into this one or apply it on top
>> > >> >> > of the dev branch.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Good point, given that otherwise FORTRAN named common blocks would not
>> > >> >> work.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> But isn't one advantage of leaving that stuff in the RO_DATA_SECTION()
>> > >> >> macro that it can be mapped read-only? Or am I suffering from excessive
>> > >> >> optimism?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > And to answer the other question, in the case where I am suffering from
>> > >> > excessive optimism, it should be a separate commit. Please see below
>> > >> > for the updated original commit thus far.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > And may I have your Tested-by?
>> > >>
>> > >> Just to confirm: does the cleanup performed in the modules going
>> > >> notifier end up acting as a barrier first before freeing the memory ?
>> > >> If not, is it explicitly stated that a barrier must be issued before
>> > >> module unload ?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > You mean rcu_barrier? It is mentioned in the documentation that this is the
>> > > responsibility of the module writer to prevent delays for all modules.
>> >
>> > It's a srcu barrier yes. Considering it would be a barrier specific to the
>> > srcu domain within that module, I don't see how it would cause delays for
>> > "all" modules if we implicitly issue the barrier on module unload. What
>> > am I missing ?
>>
>> Yes you are right. I thought of this after I just sent my email. I think it
>> makes sense for srcu case to do and could avoid a class of bugs.
>
> If there are call_srcu() callbacks outstanding, the module writer still
> needs the srcu_barrier() because otherwise callbacks arrive after
> the module text has gone, which will be disappoint the CPU when it
> tries fetching instructions that are no longer mapped. If there are
> no call_srcu() callbacks from that module, then there is no need for
> srcu_barrier() either way.
>
> So if an srcu_barrier() is needed, the module developer needs to
> supply it.

When you say "callbacks arrive after the module text has gone",
I think you assume that free_module() is invoked before the
MODULE_STATE_GOING notifiers are called. But it's done in the
opposite order: going notifiers are called first, and then
free_module() is invoked.

So AFAIU it would be safe to issue the srcu_barrier() from the module
going notifier.

Or am I missing something ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-08 15:05    [W:0.102 / U:13.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site