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: 48a7639ce8 ("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.ccr.corp.intel.com
1d1f898df6