On 2026-03-18 04:49:52 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Back to the actual bug, that call_srcu() now needs to tolerate being > > > called > > > with scheduler rq/pi locks held... > > > > This is because it is called from sched_ext BPF callbacks? > > You got it! We are re-implementing Tasks Trace RCU in terms of SRCU-fast, > and I missed this requirement the first time around. I *did* make readers > able to deal with BPF being invoked from everywhere, so two out of three?
right ;) > > > The straightforward (but perhaps broken) way to resolve this is to make > > > srcu_gp_start_if_needed() defer invoking the scheduler, similar to the > > > > Quick question. If srcu_gp_start_if_needed() can be invoked from a > > preempt-disabled section (due to rq/pi lock) then > > spin_lock_irqsave_sdp_contention(sdp, &flags); > > > > does not work, right? > > Agreed, which is why the patch at the end of this email converts this to: > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave_sdp_contention(sdp, &flags) I've seen that now. So the spinlock_t usage in SRCU was short. > > > way that vanilla RCU's call_rcu_core() function takes an early exit if > > > interrupts are disabled. Of course, vanilla RCU can rely on things like > > > the scheduling-clock interrupt to start any needed grace periods [1], > > > but SRCU will instead need to manually defer this work, perhaps using > > > workqueues or IRQ work. > > > > > > In addition, rcutorture needs to be upgraded to sometimes invoke > > > ->call() with the scheduler pi lock held, but this change is not fixing > > > a regression, so could be deferred. (There is already code in rcutorture > > > that invokes the readers while holding a scheduler pi lock.) > > > > > > Given that RCU for this week through the end of March belongs to you guys, > > > if one of you can get this done by end of day Thursday, London time, > > > very good! Otherwise, I can put something together. > > > > > > Please let me know! > > > > Given that the current locking does allow it and lockdep should have > > complained, I am curious if we could rule that out ;) Your patch just s/spinlock_t/raw_spinlock_t so we get the locking/ nesting right. The wakeup problem remains, right? But looking at the code, there is just srcu_funnel_gp_start(). If its srcu_schedule_cbs_sdp() / queue_delayed_work() usage is always delayed then there will be always a timer and never a direct wake up of the worker. Wouldn't that work? > It would be nice, but your point about needing to worry about spinlocks > is compelling. > > But couldn't lockdep scan the current task's list of held locks and see > whether only raw spinlocks are held (including when no spinlocks of any > type are held), and complain in that case? Or would that scanning be > too high of overhead? (But we need that scan anyway to check deadlock, > don't we?) PeterZ didn't like it and the nesting thing identified most of the problem cases. It should also catch _this_ one. Thinking about it further, you don't need to worry about local_bh_disable() but RCU will becomes another corner case. You would have to exclude "rcu_read_lock(); spin_lock();" on a !preempt kernel which would otherwise lead to false positives. But as I said, this case as explained is a nesting problem and should be reported by lockdep with its current features. > > > Thanx, Paul [2] > > > > > > [1] The exceptions to this rule being handled by the call to > > > invoke_rcu_core() when rcu_is_watching() returns false. > > > > > > [2] Ah, and should vanilla RCU's call_rcu() be invokable from NMI > > > handlers? Or should there be a call_rcu_nmi() for this purpose? > > > Or should we continue to have its callers check in_nmi() when needed? > > > > Did someone ask for this? > > Yes. The BPF guys need to invoke call_srcu() from interrupts-disabled > regions of code. I am way to old and lazy to do this sort of thing > spontaneously. ;-) IRQ disabled should work but you asked about call_rcu_nmi() and NMI is already complicated because "most" other things don't work and you would need irq_work to let the remaining kernel know that you did something in NMI and this needs to be integrated now. I don't think regular RCU has call_rcu() from NMI. But I guess wrapping it via irq_work would be one way of dealing with it. > Thanx, Paul > Sebastian
