Re: printk deadlock due to double lock attempt on current CPU's runqueue

From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>,
	Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
	mkoutny@suse.com, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: printk deadlock due to double lock attempt on current CPU's runqueue
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 10:00:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtC_A-_sfQ+rm440oHwd2gUZ222FMwsi-JTkyLPc-x0qrw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211109213847.GY174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 22:38, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 12:06:48PM -0800, Sultan Alsawaf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I encountered a printk deadlock on 5.13 which appears to still affect the latest
> > kernel. The deadlock occurs due to printk being used while having the current
> > CPU's runqueue locked, and the underlying framebuffer console attempting to lock
> > the same runqueue when printk tries to flush the log buffer.
>
> Yes, that's a known 'feature' of some consoles. printk() is in the
> process of being reworked to not call con->write() from the printk()
> calling context, which would go a long way towards fixing this.
>
> >   #27 [ffffc900005b8e28] enqueue_task_fair at ffffffff8129774a  <-- SCHED_WARN_ON(rq->tmp_alone_branch != &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list);
> >   #28 [ffffc900005b8ec0] activate_task at ffffffff8125625d
> >   #29 [ffffc900005b8ef0] ttwu_do_activate at ffffffff81257943
> >   #30 [ffffc900005b8f28] sched_ttwu_pending at ffffffff8125c71f <-- locks this CPU's runqueue
> >   #31 [ffffc900005b8fa0] flush_smp_call_function_queue at ffffffff813c6833
> >   #32 [ffffc900005b8fd8] generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt at ffffffff813c7f58
> >   #33 [ffffc900005b8fe0] __sysvec_call_function_single at ffffffff810f1456
> >   #34 [ffffc900005b8ff0] sysvec_call_function_single at ffffffff831ec1bc
> >   --- <IRQ stack> ---
> >   #35 [ffffc9000019fda8] sysvec_call_function_single at ffffffff831ec1bc
> >       RIP: ffffffff831ed06e  RSP: ffffed10438a6a49  RFLAGS: 00000001
> >       RAX: ffff888100d832c0  RBX: 0000000000000000  RCX: 1ffff92000033fd7
> >       RDX: 0000000000000000  RSI: ffff888100d832c0  RDI: ffffed10438a6a49
> >       RBP: ffffffff831ec166   R8: dffffc0000000000   R9: 0000000000000000
> >       R10: ffffffff83400e22  R11: 0000000000000000  R12: ffffffff831ed83e
> >       R13: 0000000000000000  R14: ffffc9000019fde8  R15: ffffffff814d4d9d
> >       ORIG_RAX: ffff88821c53524b  CS: 0001  SS: ef073a2
> >   WARNING: possibly bogus exception frame
> > ----------------------->8-----------------------
> >
> > The catalyst is that CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG is enabled and the tmp_alone_branch
> > assertion fails (Peter, is this bad?).
>
> Yes, that's not good. IIRC Vincent and Michal were looking at that code
> recently.

Is it the same SCHED_WARN_ON(rq->tmp_alone_branch !=
&rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list); that generates the deadlock on v5.15 too ?

one remaining tmp_alone_branch warning has been fixed in v5.15 with
2630cde26711 ("sched/fair: Add ancestors of unthrottled undecayed cfs_rq")

>
> > I'm not sure what the *correct* solution is here (don't use printk while having
> > a runqueue locked? don't use schedule_work() from the fbcon path? tell printk
> > to use one of its lock-less backends?), so I've cc'd all the relevant folks.
>
> I'm a firm believer in early_printk serial consoles.