All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
To: Kassey Li <quic_yingangl@quicinc.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: avoid re-entry of pwq->pool->lock through __queue_work
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 00:51:08 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyDXL90aprU2FjF++5DunJb90MiWRcz4VzBeFmJ0xeq-VA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220727110426.19079-1-quic_yingangl@quicinc.com>

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.

> [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?

> [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?

> [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
>

  reply	other threads:[~2022-07-27 17:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-27 11:04 [PATCH] workqueue: avoid re-entry of pwq->pool->lock through __queue_work Kassey Li
2022-07-27 16:51 ` Lai Jiangshan [this message]
2022-07-28  2:37   ` Kassey Li
2022-07-28 13:36 ` [workqueue] e12ce2b778: kernel_BUG_at_kernel/irq_work.c kernel test robot
2022-07-28 13:36   ` kernel test robot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CAJhGHyDXL90aprU2FjF++5DunJb90MiWRcz4VzBeFmJ0xeq-VA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quic_yingangl@quicinc.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.