Re: [PATCH] workqueue: avoid re-entry of pwq->pool->lock through __queue_work

[Kassey Li <quic_yingangl@quicinc.com>]

On 7/28/2022 12:51 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 7:04 PM Kassey Li <quic_yingangl@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>
>> [0:swapper/4]BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#4, swapper/4/0
>> [0:swapper/4]lock: 0xffffff8000c0f400, .magic: dead4ead, .owner:
>> swapper/4/0, .owner_cpu: 4
>> [0:swapper/4]CPU: 4 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/4 Tainted: G S
>> [0:swapper/4]Call trace:
>> [0:swapper/4] dump_backtrace.cfi_jt+0x0/0x8
>> [0:swapper/4] show_stack+0x1c/0x2c
>> [0:swapper/4] dump_stack_lvl+0xd8/0x16c
>> [0:swapper/4] spin_dump+0x104/0x278
>> [0:swapper/4] do_raw_spin_lock+0xec/0x15c
>> [0:swapper/4] _raw_spin_lock+0x28/0x3c
>> [0:swapper/4] __queue_work+0x1fc/0x618
>> [0:swapper/4] queue_work_on+0x64/0x134
>> [0:swapper/4] memlat_hrtimer_handler+0x28/0x3c [memlat]
>> [0:swapper/4] __run_hrtimer+0xe8/0x448
>> [0:swapper/4] hrtimer_interrupt+0x184/0x40c
>> [0:swapper/4] arch_timer_handler_virt+0x5c/0x98
>> [0:swapper/4] handle_percpu_devid_irq+0xd8/0x3e0
>> [0:swapper/4] __handle_domain_irq+0xd0/0x19c
>> [0:swapper/4] gic_handle_irq+0x6c/0x134
>> [0:swapper/4] el1_irq+0xe4/0x1c0
> 
> It seems it is an unexpected IRQ.
    thanks for your suggest, we will focus on the api usage of spin_lock 
where possible broken the irq enable/disable.
    currently, abandon this change.
> 
>> [0:swapper/4] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x2c/0x60
>> [0:swapper/4] try_to_wake_up.llvm.14610847381734009831+0x334/0x888
>> [0:swapper/4] wake_up_process+0x1c/0x2c
>> [0:swapper/4] __queue_work+0x3e8/0x618
>> [0:swapper/4] delayed_work_timer_fn+0x24/0x34
> 
> delayed_work_timer_fn() should have been invoked with IRQ disabled
> since it is TIMER_IRQSAFE.
> 
> Could you add some code to check if it is the case if possible, please?
   the timer flags = 0x15200004, which means TIMER_IRQSAFE is set.
   #define TIMER_IRQSAFE 0x00200000

> 
>> [0:swapper/4] call_timer_fn+0x58/0x268
>> [0:swapper/4] expire_timers+0xe0/0x1c4
> 
> Or could you do a "disass expire_timers+0xe0" in GDB?


    0xffffffc01025bf44 <+200>:   tbz     w8, #5, 0xffffffc01025bee4 
<expire_timers+104>
    0xffffffc01025bf48 <+204>:   bl      0xffffffc0118093bc 
<_raw_spin_unlock>
    0xffffffc01025bf4c <+208>:   mov     x0, x23
    0xffffffc01025bf50 <+212>:   mov     x1, x24
    0xffffffc01025bf54 <+216>:   mov     x2, x21
    0xffffffc01025bf58 <+220>:   bl      0xffffffc01025c040 <call_timer_fn>
    0xffffffc01025bf5c <+224>:   mov     x0, x20 //expire_timers+0xe0
--Type <RET> for more, q to quit, c to continue without paging--
    0xffffffc01025bf60 <+228>:   bl      0xffffffc011809230 <_raw_spin_lock>
    0xffffffc01025bf64 <+232>:   b       0xffffffc01025bf00 
<expire_timers+132>

> 
>> [0:swapper/4] __run_timers+0x16c/0x1c4
>> [0:swapper/4] run_timer_softirq+0x34/0x60
>> [0:swapper/4] efi_header_end+0x198/0x59c
>> [0:swapper/4] __irq_exit_rcu+0xdc/0xf0
>> [0:swapper/4] irq_exit+0x14/0x50
>> [0:swapper/4] __handle_domain_irq+0xd4/0x19c
>> [0:swapper/4] gic_handle_irq+0x6c/0x134
>> [0:swapper/4] el1_irq+0xe4/0x1c0
>> [0:swapper/4] cpuidle_enter_state+0x1b4/0x5dc
>> [0:swapper/4] cpuidle_enter+0x3c/0x58
>> [0:swapper/4] do_idle.llvm.6296834828977863291+0x1f4/0x2e8
>> [0:swapper/4] cpu_startup_entry+0x28/0x2c
>> [0:swapper/4] secondary_start_kernel+0x1c8/0x230
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kassey Li <quic_yingangl@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/workqueue.c | 8 ++++----
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index 1ea50f6be843..f23491f373b1 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -1468,10 +1468,10 @@ static void __queue_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>>                  } else {
>>                          /* meh... not running there, queue here */
>>                          raw_spin_unlock(&last_pool->lock);
>> -                       raw_spin_lock(&pwq->pool->lock);
>> +                       raw_spin_lock_irq(&pwq->pool->lock);
>>                  }
>>          } else {
>> -               raw_spin_lock(&pwq->pool->lock);
>> +               raw_spin_lock_irq(&pwq->pool->lock);
>>          }
>>
>>          /*
>> @@ -1484,7 +1484,7 @@ static void __queue_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>>           */
>>          if (unlikely(!pwq->refcnt)) {
>>                  if (wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND) {
>> -                       raw_spin_unlock(&pwq->pool->lock);
>> +                       raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pwq->pool->lock);
> 
> The patch is hardly correct, __queue_work() is called with irq-disabled,
> this code will enable IRQ imbalanced.
> 
>>                          cpu_relax();
>>                          goto retry;
>>                  }
>> @@ -1517,7 +1517,7 @@ static void __queue_work(int cpu, struct workqueue_struct *wq,
>>          insert_work(pwq, work, worklist, work_flags);
>>
>>   out:
>> -       raw_spin_unlock(&pwq->pool->lock);
>> +       raw_spin_unlock_irq(&pwq->pool->lock);
>>          rcu_read_unlock();
>>   }
>>
>> --
>> 2.17.1
>>