On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 05:38:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 06:24:56PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > Although all articles declare that rcu read site is deadlock-immunity. > > It is not true for rcu-preempt, it will be deadlock if rcu read site > > overlaps with scheduler lock. > > The real rule is that if the scheduler does its outermost rcu_read_unlock() > with one of those locks held, it has to have avoided enabling preemption > through the entire RCU read-side critical section. > > That said, avoiding the need for this rule would be a good thing. > > How did you test this? The rcutorture tests will not exercise this. > (Intentionally so, given that it can deadlock!) > > > ec433f0c, 10f39bb1 and 016a8d5b just partially solve it. But rcu read site > > is still not deadlock-immunity. And the problem described in 016a8d5b > > is still existed(rcu_read_unlock_special() calls wake_up). > > > > The problem is fixed in patch5. > > This is going to require some serious review and testing. One requirement > is that RCU priority boosting not persist significantly beyond the > re-enabling of interrupts associated with the irq-disabled lock. To do > otherwise breaks RCU priority boosting. At first glance, the added > set_need_resched() might handle this, but that is part of the review > and testing required. > > Steven, would you and Carsten be willing to try this and see if it > helps with the issues you are seeing in -rt? (My guess is "no", since > a deadlock would block forever rather than waking up after a couple > thousand seconds, but worth a try.) No joy from either Steven or Carsten on the -rt hangs. I pushed this to -rcu and ran tests. I hit this in one of the configurations: [ 393.641012] ================================= [ 393.641012] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] [ 393.641012] 3.11.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted [ 393.641012] --------------------------------- [ 393.641012] inconsistent {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W} usage. [ 393.641012] rcu_torture_rea/697 [HC1[1]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: [ 393.641012] (&lock->wait_lock){?.+...}, at: [] rt_mutex_unlock+0x53/0x100 [ 393.641012] {HARDIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at: [ 393.641012] [] __lock_acquire+0x651/0x1d40 [ 393.641012] [] lock_acquire+0x95/0x210 [ 393.641012] [] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x50 [ 393.641012] [] rt_mutex_slowlock+0x39/0x170 [ 393.641012] [] rt_mutex_lock+0x2a/0x30 [ 393.641012] [] rcu_boost_kthread+0x173/0x800 [ 393.641012] [] kthread+0xd6/0xe0 [ 393.641012] [] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 393.641012] irq event stamp: 96581116 [ 393.641012] hardirqs last enabled at (96581115): [] restore_args+0x0/0x30 [ 393.641012] hardirqs last disabled at (96581116): [] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6a/0x80 [ 393.641012] softirqs last enabled at (96576304): [] __do_softirq+0x174/0x470 [ 393.641012] softirqs last disabled at (96576275): [] irq_exit+0x96/0xc0 [ 393.641012] [ 393.641012] other info that might help us debug this: [ 393.641012] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 393.641012] [ 393.641012] CPU0 [ 393.641012] ---- [ 393.641012] lock(&lock->wait_lock); [ 393.641012] [ 393.641012] lock(&lock->wait_lock); [ 393.641012] [ 393.641012] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 393.641012] [ 393.641012] no locks held by rcu_torture_rea/697. [ 393.641012] [ 393.641012] stack backtrace: [ 393.641012] CPU: 3 PID: 697 Comm: rcu_torture_rea Not tainted 3.11.0-rc1+ #1 [ 393.641012] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2007 [ 393.641012] ffffffff8586fea0 ffff88001fcc3a78 ffffffff8187b4cb ffffffff8104a261 [ 393.641012] ffff88001e1a20c0 ffff88001fcc3ad8 ffffffff818773e4 0000000000000000 [ 393.641012] ffff880000000000 ffff880000000001 ffffffff81010a0a 0000000000000001 [ 393.641012] Call Trace: [ 393.641012] [] dump_stack+0x4f/0x84 [ 393.641012] [] ? console_unlock+0x291/0x410 [ 393.641012] [] print_usage_bug+0x1f5/0x206 [ 393.641012] [] ? save_stack_trace+0x2a/0x50 [ 393.641012] [] mark_lock+0x283/0x2e0 [ 393.641012] [] ? print_irq_inversion_bug.part.40+0x1f0/0x1f0 [ 393.641012] [] __lock_acquire+0x906/0x1d40 [ 393.641012] [] ? __lock_acquire+0x2eb/0x1d40 [ 393.641012] [] ? __lock_acquire+0x2eb/0x1d40 [ 393.641012] [] lock_acquire+0x95/0x210 [ 393.641012] [] ? rt_mutex_unlock+0x53/0x100 [ 393.641012] [] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x50 [ 393.641012] [] ? rt_mutex_unlock+0x53/0x100 [ 393.641012] [] rt_mutex_unlock+0x53/0x100 [ 393.641012] [] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x17a/0x2a0 [ 393.641012] [] rcu_check_callbacks+0x313/0x950 [ 393.641012] [] ? hrtimer_run_queues+0x1d/0x180 [ 393.641012] [] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10 [ 393.641012] [] update_process_times+0x43/0x80 [ 393.641012] [] tick_sched_handle.isra.10+0x31/0x40 [ 393.641012] [] tick_sched_timer+0x47/0x70 [ 393.641012] [] __run_hrtimer+0x7c/0x490 [ 393.641012] [] ? ktime_get_update_offsets+0x4d/0xe0 [ 393.641012] [] ? tick_nohz_handler+0xa0/0xa0 [ 393.641012] [] hrtimer_interrupt+0x107/0x260 [ 393.641012] [] local_apic_timer_interrupt+0x33/0x60 [ 393.641012] [] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x3e/0x60 [ 393.641012] [] apic_timer_interrupt+0x6f/0x80 [ 393.641012] [] ? rcu_scheduler_starting+0x60/0x60 [ 393.641012] [] ? __rcu_read_unlock+0x91/0xa0 [ 393.641012] [] rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x33/0x70 [ 393.641012] [] rcu_torture_reader+0xe4/0x450 [ 393.641012] [] ? rcu_torture_reader+0x450/0x450 [ 393.641012] [] ? rcutorture_trace_dump+0x30/0x30 [ 393.641012] [] kthread+0xd6/0xe0 [ 393.641012] [] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x60 [ 393.641012] [] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x130/0x130 [ 393.641012] [] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 393.641012] [] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x130/0x130 I don't see this without your patches. .config attached. The other configurations completed without errors. Short tests, 30 minutes per configuration. Thoughts? Thanx, Paul