From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5C1C43215 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C05E2244A for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="RuRpb3gE"; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com header.i=@amazonses.com header.b="VTEFr85d" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727556AbfKTE6s (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:58:48 -0500 Received: from a27-21.smtp-out.us-west-2.amazonses.com ([54.240.27.21]:46570 "EHLO a27-21.smtp-out.us-west-2.amazonses.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727395AbfKTE6r (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 23:58:47 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=zsmsymrwgfyinv5wlfyidntwsjeeldzt; d=codeaurora.org; t=1574225926; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=d39WleQKXK6tcao+CuIx2kbRmAROSeJKz7+sdrybO7g=; b=RuRpb3gEGS8EMcIscWr4vbL1hiQCgkinKXqlGCiHpxuJbSXDSbtqu1/mkf7wqD9E 783b8igt46guibWu9Wo+/gaZxp8FsGd4Ah+GUrc52xMhrr3ez8o9R88DYZfLC7z82pq /GcudiIgZtDj8P4zmnXo3QOJRhAL/qcbtA+yozgQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=gdwg2y3kokkkj5a55z2ilkup5wp5hhxx; d=amazonses.com; t=1574225926; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Feedback-ID; bh=d39WleQKXK6tcao+CuIx2kbRmAROSeJKz7+sdrybO7g=; b=VTEFr85dLhdGnfrxyhv9RQvrsdl3GtqW/QNzpOl//7tOv2ApTOlZQCBwCDjoVCS+ 7IDkg5zinB3o6KjKsov0qWicR3xWtgLr4a0HHqv3epRnBhD3qFUzBKC37ZFcNMqwFtZ fwVck50ZZfKcjC50pECRt8S74qP7ZvIglsSt4tKA= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org DDA73C433A2 Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: aws-us-west-2-caf-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=neeraju@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Fix missed wakeup of exp_wq waiters To: paulmck@kernel.org Cc: josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gkohli@codeaurora.org, prsood@codeaurora.org, pkondeti@codeaurora.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org References: <0101016e81a9ecb9-ce4a6425-f21d-4166-96ed-32d3700717f1-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> <20191119193827.GB2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> From: Neeraj Upadhyay Message-ID: <0101016e872d57f5-196e5b96-3cd0-41db-b7a2-fd8ea3e87d41-000000@us-west-2.amazonses.com> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 04:58:46 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191119193827.GB2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.11.20-54.240.27.21 Feedback-ID: 1.us-west-2.CZuq2qbDmUIuT3qdvXlRHZZCpfZqZ4GtG9v3VKgRyF0=:AmazonSES Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/20/2019 1:08 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 03:17:07AM +0000, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote: >> For the tasks waiting in exp_wq inside exp_funnel_lock(), >> there is a chance that they might be indefinitely blocked >> in below scenario: >> >> 1. There is a task waiting on exp sequence 0b'100' inside >> exp_funnel_lock(). This task blocks at wq index 1. >> >> synchronize_rcu_expedited() >> s = 0b'100' >> exp_funnel_lock() >> wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3] >> >> 2. The expedited grace period (which above task blocks for) >> completes and task (task1) holding exp_mutex queues >> worker and schedules out. >> >> synchronize_rcu_expedited() >> s = 0b'100' >> queue_work(rcu_gp_wq, &rew.rew_work) >> wake_up_worker() >> schedule() >> >> 3. kworker A picks up the queued work and completes the exp gp >> sequence and then blocks on exp_wake_mutex, which is held >> by another kworker, which is doing wakeups for expedited_sequence >> 0. >> >> rcu_exp_wait_wake() >> rcu_exp_wait_wake() >> rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence is incremented >> // to 0b'100' >> mutex_lock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex) >> >> 4. task1 does not enter wait queue, as sync_exp_work_done() returns true, >> and releases exp_mutex. >> >> wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3], >> sync_exp_work_done(rsp, s)); >> mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex); >> >> 5. Next exp GP completes, and sequence number is incremented: >> >> rcu_exp_wait_wake() >> rcu_exp_wait_wake() >> rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence = 0b'200' >> >> 6. kworker A acquires exp_wake_mutex. As it uses current >> expedited_sequence, it wakes up workers from wrong wait queue >> index - it should have worken wait queue corresponding to >> 0b'100' sequence, but wakes up the ones for 0b'200' sequence. >> This results in task at step 1 indefinitely blocked. >> >> rcu_exp_wait_wake() >> wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rsp->expedited_sequence) & 0x3]); >> >> This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend, as scsi >> device was stuck in _synchronize_rcu_expedited(). >> >> schedule() >> synchronize_rcu_expedited() >> synchronize_rcu() >> scsi_device_quiesce() >> scsi_bus_suspend() >> dpm_run_callback() >> __device_suspend() >> >> Fix this by using the correct exp sequence number, the one which >> owner of the exp_mutex initiated and passed to kworker, >> to index the wait queue, inside rcu_exp_wait_wake(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay > > Queued, thank you! > > I reworked the commit message to make it easier to follow the sequence > of events. Please see below and let me know if I messed anything up. > > Thanx, Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > commit d887fd2a66861f51ed93b5dde894b9646a5569dd > Author: Neeraj Upadhyay > Date: Tue Nov 19 03:17:07 2019 +0000 > > rcu: Fix missed wakeup of exp_wq waiters > > Tasks waiting within exp_funnel_lock() for an expedited grace period to > elapse can be starved due to the following sequence of events: > > 1. Tasks A and B both attempt to start an expedited grace > period at about the same time. This grace period will have > completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's > ->expedited_sequence field are 0b'0100', for example, when the > initial value of this counter is zero. Task A wins, and thus > does the actual work of starting the grace period, including > acquiring the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the > counter to 0b'0001'. > > 2. Because task B lost the race to start the grace period, it > waits on ->expedited_sequence to reach 0b'0100' inside of > exp_funnel_lock(). This task therefore blocks on the rcu_node > structure's ->exp_wq[1] field, keeping in mind that the > end-of-grace-period value of ->expedited_sequence (0b'0100') > is shifted down two bits before indexing the ->exp_wq[] field. > > 3. Task C attempts to start another expedited grace period, > but blocks on ->exp_mutex, which is still held by Task A. > > 4. The aforementioned expedited grace period completes, so that > ->expedited_sequence now has the value 0b'0100'. A kworker task > therefore acquires the rcu_state structure's ->exp_wake_mutex > and starts awakening any tasks waiting for this grace period. > > 5. One of the first tasks awakened happens to be Task A. Task A > therefore releases the rcu_state structure's ->exp_mutex, > which allows Task C to start the next expedited grace period, > which causes the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's > ->expedited_sequence field to become 0b'0101'. > > 6. Task C's expedited grace period completes, so that the lower four > bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now > become 0b'1000'. > > 7. The kworker task from step 4 above continues its wakeups. > Unfortunately, the wake_up_all() refetches the rcu_state > structure's .expedited_sequence field: This might not be true. I think wake_up_all(), which internally calls __wake_up(), will use a single wq_head for doing all wakeups. So, a single .expedited_sequence value would be used to get wq_head. void __wake_up(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, ...) However, below sequence of events would result in problem: 1. Tasks A starts an expedited grace period at about the same time. This grace period will have completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field are 0b'0100', for example, when the initial value of this counter is zero. Task A wins, acquires the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the counter to 0b'0001'. 2. The aforementioned expedited grace period completes, so that ->expedited_sequence now has the value 0b'0100'. A kworker task therefore acquires the rcu_state structure's ->exp_wake_mutex and starts awakening any tasks waiting for this grace period. This kworker gets preempted while unlocking wq_head lock wake_up_all() __wake_up() __wake_up_common_lock() spin_unlock_irqrestore() __raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore() preempt_enable() __preempt_schedule() 3. One of the first tasks awakened happens to be Task A. Task A therefore releases the rcu_state structure's ->exp_mutex, 4. Tasks B and C both attempt to start an expedited grace period at about the same time. This grace period will have completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field are 0b'1000'. Task B wins, and thus does the actual work of starting the grace period, including acquiring the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the counter to 0b'0101'. 5. Because task C lost the race to start the grace period, it waits on ->expedited_sequence to reach 0b'1000' inside of exp_funnel_lock(). This task therefore blocks on the rcu_node structure's ->exp_wq[2] field, keeping in mind that the end-of-grace-period value of ->expedited_sequence (0b'1000') is shifted down two bits before indexing the ->exp_wq[] field. 6. Task B queues work to complete expedited grace period. This task is preempted just before wait_event call. Kworker task picks up the work queued by task B and and completes grace period, so that the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now become 0b'1000'. This kworker starts waiting on the exp_wake_mutex, which is owned by kworker doing wakeups for expedited sequence initiated by task A. 7. Task B schedules in and finds its expedited sequence snapshot has completed; so, it does not enter waitq and releases exp_mutex. This allows Task D to start the next expedited grace period, which causes the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field to become 0b'1001'. 8. Task D's expedited grace period completes, so that the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now become 0b'1100'. 9. kworker from step 2 is scheduled in and releases exp_wake_mutex; kworker correspnding to Task B's expedited grace period acquires exp_wake_mutex and starts wakeups. Unfortunately, it used the rcu_state structure's .expedited_sequence field for determining the waitq index. wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]); This results in the wakeup being applied to the rcu_node structure's ->exp_wq[3] field, which is unfortunate given that Task C is instead waiting on ->exp_wq[2]. > > wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]); > > This results in the wakeup being applied to the rcu_node > structure's ->exp_wq[2] field, which is unfortunate given that > Task B is instead waiting on ->exp_wq[1]. > > On a busy system, no harm is done (or at least no permanent harm is done). > Some later expedited grace period will redo the wakeup. But on a quiet > system, such as many embedded systems, it might be a good long time before > there was another expedited grace period. On such embedded systems, > this situation could therefore result in a system hang. > > This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend (which > usually qualifies as a quiet time) due to a SCSI device being stuck in > _synchronize_rcu_expedited(), with the following stack trace: > > schedule() > synchronize_rcu_expedited() > synchronize_rcu() > scsi_device_quiesce() > scsi_bus_suspend() > dpm_run_callback() > __device_suspend() > > This commit therefore prevents such delays, timeouts, and hangs by > making rcu_exp_wait_wake() use its "s" argument consistently instead of > refetching from rcu_state.expedited_sequence. > Do we need a "fixes" tag here? > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h > index 6ce598d..4433d00a 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h > @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(unsigned long s) > spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock); > } > smp_mb(); /* All above changes before wakeup. */ > - wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]); > + wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3]); > } > trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, s, TPS("endwake")); > mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex); > -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation