* [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
@ 2012-08-22 2:40 Michael Wang
2012-09-03 2:16 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Wang @ 2012-08-22 2:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: mingo, Peter Zijlstra
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
[ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
[ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
[ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
[ 0.045861] Call Trace:
[ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
[ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
[ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
[ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
[ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
[ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
[ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
[ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
[ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
[ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
[ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
[ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
[ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
[ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
[ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
[ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
[ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
[ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
[ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
[ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
[ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
[ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
It was caused by that:
native_smp_prepare_cpus()
preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
__might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
might_resched()
__schedule()
preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
* schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
* Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
*/
- if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
+ if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
+ && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
__schedule_bug(prev);
rcu_sleep_check();
--
1.7.4.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
2012-08-22 2:40 [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug() Michael Wang
@ 2012-09-03 2:16 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 9:27 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Wang @ 2012-09-03 2:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: mingo, Peter Zijlstra
On 08/22/2012 10:40 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>
> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>
> It was caused by that:
>
> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
> might_resched()
> __schedule()
> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>
> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>
> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
Could I get some comments on this patch?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
> */
> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
> __schedule_bug(prev);
> rcu_sleep_check();
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
2012-09-03 2:16 ` Michael Wang
@ 2012-09-13 9:27 ` Michael Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Wang @ 2012-09-13 9:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML; +Cc: mingo, Peter Zijlstra
On 09/03/2012 10:16 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 08/22/2012 10:40 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>>
>> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
>> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
>> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
>> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
>> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
>> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
>> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
>> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
>> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
>> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
>> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
>> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
>> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
>> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
>> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
>> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
>> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
>> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
>> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
>> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
>> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
>> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
>> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>>
>> It was caused by that:
>>
>> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
>> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
>> might_resched()
>> __schedule()
>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>>
>> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
>> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>>
>> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
>> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
>
> Could I get some comments on this patch?
Oh, I just realised I'm using the wrong address...
So could I get some comments on the patch?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
>> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
>> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
>> */
>> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
>> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
>> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
>> __schedule_bug(prev);
>> rcu_sleep_check();
>>
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
2012-08-22 2:40 [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug() Michael Wang
2012-09-03 2:16 ` Michael Wang
@ 2012-09-13 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 3:02 ` Michael Wang
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2012-09-13 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Wang; +Cc: LKML, mingo
On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>
> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>
> It was caused by that:
>
> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
> might_resched()
> __schedule()
> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>
> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>
> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
> */
> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
> __schedule_bug(prev);
> rcu_sleep_check();
>
No this is very very wrong.. we avoid the might_sleep bug on !
SYSTEM_RUNNING because while we _might_ sleep, we should _never_
actually sleep under those conditions.
So hitting a schedule() here is an actual bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
2012-09-13 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2012-09-14 3:02 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-17 2:25 ` Michael Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Wang @ 2012-09-14 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: LKML, mingo
On 09/13/2012 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>
>> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>>
>> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
>> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
>> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
>> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
>> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
>> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
>> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
>> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
>> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
>> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
>> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
>> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
>> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
>> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
>> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
>> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
>> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
>> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
>> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
>> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
>> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
>> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
>> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>>
>> It was caused by that:
>>
>> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
>> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
>> might_resched()
>> __schedule()
>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>>
>> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
>> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>>
>> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
>> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
>> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
>> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
>> */
>> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
>> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
>> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
>> __schedule_bug(prev);
>> rcu_sleep_check();
>>
>
>
> No this is very very wrong.. we avoid the might_sleep bug on !
> SYSTEM_RUNNING because while we _might_ sleep, we should _never_
> actually sleep under those conditions.
>
> So hitting a schedule() here is an actual bug.
I see, so the rule is that we never allowed invoke schedule() with
preempt disabled.
The actual reason trigger this bug is that:
we invoke irq_alloc_descs() which will use mutex_lock() while
!SYSTEM_RUNNING.
And mutex_lock() invoke the might_sleep(), which do the schedule()
without any warning.
So if we want to follow the rule, should_resched() should never return
true if preempt disabled.
I think we could do changes like:
index c46a011..36fe510 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -4209,7 +4209,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
static inline int should_resched(void)
{
- return need_resched() && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
+ return need_resched() && !preempt_count();
}
static void __cond_resched(void)
Then the should_resched() will return false when the preempt disabled or
PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit is on.
Could we use this solution?
Regards,
Michael Wang
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug()
2012-09-14 3:02 ` Michael Wang
@ 2012-09-17 2:25 ` Michael Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Wang @ 2012-09-17 2:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: LKML, mingo, svaidy
On 09/14/2012 11:02 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 09/13/2012 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 10:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>> From: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com> has reported the bug:
>>>
>>> [ 0.043953] BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/0/1/0x10000002
>>> [ 0.044017] no locks held by swapper/0/1.
>>> [ 0.044692] Pid: 1, comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.6.0-rc1-00420-gb7aebb9 #34
>>> [ 0.045861] Call Trace:
>>> [ 0.048071] [<c106361e>] __schedule_bug+0x5e/0x70
>>> [ 0.048890] [<c1b28701>] __schedule+0x91/0xb10
>>> [ 0.049660] [<c14472ea>] ? vsnprintf+0x33a/0x450
>>> [ 0.050444] [<c1060006>] ? lg_local_lock+0x6/0x70
>>> [ 0.051256] [<c14fb5b1>] ? wait_for_xmitr+0x31/0x90
>>> [ 0.052019] [<c144fd55>] ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0xa5/0xf0
>>> [ 0.052903] [<c1b2a532>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x22/0x30
>>> [ 0.053759] [<c105cdbb>] ? up+0x1b/0x70
>>> [ 0.054421] [<c1065d6b>] __cond_resched+0x1b/0x30
>>> [ 0.055228] [<c1b292d5>] _cond_resched+0x45/0x50
>>> [ 0.056020] [<c1b26c58>] mutex_lock_nested+0x28/0x370
>>> [ 0.056884] [<c1034222>] ? console_unlock+0x3a2/0x4e0
>>> [ 0.057741] [<c1ac8559>] __irq_alloc_descs+0x39/0x1c0
>>> [ 0.058589] [<c10223bc>] io_apic_setup_irq_pin+0x2c/0x310
>>> [ 0.060042] [<c20638df>] setup_IO_APIC+0x101/0x744
>>> [ 0.060878] [<c1021d51>] ? clear_IO_APIC+0x31/0x50
>>> [ 0.061695] [<c20600f4>] native_smp_prepare_cpus+0x538/0x680
>>> [ 0.062644] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>>> [ 0.063517] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>>> [ 0.064016] [<c2056adc>] kernel_init+0x4b/0x17f
>>> [ 0.064790] [<c2056a91>] ? do_one_initcall+0x12c/0x12c
>>> [ 0.065660] [<c1b2bbd6>] kernel_thread_helper+0x6/0x10
>>>
>>> It was caused by that:
>>>
>>> native_smp_prepare_cpus()
>>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>>> mutex_lock() //in __irq_alloc_descs
>>> __might_sleep() //system is booting, avoid check
>>> might_resched()
>>> __schedule()
>>> preempt_disable() //preempt_count++
>>> schedule_bug() //preempt_count > 1, report bug
>>>
>>> The __might_sleep() avoid check on atomic sleeping until the system booted
>>> while the schedule_bug() doesn't, it's the reason for the bug.
>>>
>>> This patch will add one additional check in schedule_bug() to avoid check
>>> until the system booted, so the check on atomic sleeping will be unified.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Tested-by: Fengguang Wu <wfg@linux.intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> index 4376c9f..3396c33 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
>>> @@ -3321,7 +3321,8 @@ static inline void schedule_debug(struct task_struct *prev)
>>> * schedule() atomically, we ignore that path for now.
>>> * Otherwise, whine if we are scheduling when we should not be.
>>> */
>>> - if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state))
>>> + if (unlikely(in_atomic_preempt_off() && !prev->exit_state
>>> + && system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
>>> __schedule_bug(prev);
>>> rcu_sleep_check();
>>>
>>
>>
>> No this is very very wrong.. we avoid the might_sleep bug on !
>> SYSTEM_RUNNING because while we _might_ sleep, we should _never_
>> actually sleep under those conditions.
>>
>> So hitting a schedule() here is an actual bug.
>
> I see, so the rule is that we never allowed invoke schedule() with
> preempt disabled.
>
> The actual reason trigger this bug is that:
> we invoke irq_alloc_descs() which will use mutex_lock() while
> !SYSTEM_RUNNING.
> And mutex_lock() invoke the might_sleep(), which do the schedule()
> without any warning.
>
> So if we want to follow the rule, should_resched() should never return
> true if preempt disabled.
>
> I think we could do changes like:
>
>
>
> index c46a011..36fe510 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -4209,7 +4209,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sched_yield)
>
> static inline int should_resched(void)
> {
> - return need_resched() && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE);
> + return need_resched() && !preempt_count();
> }
>
> static void __cond_resched(void)
>
>
>
> Then the should_resched() will return false when the preempt disabled or
> PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit is on.
>
> Could we use this solution?
Let me send out the patch so we could have a thread to discuss, but
please warn me if it's a totally foolish one...
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-09-17 2:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-08-22 2:40 [PATCH] sched: unify the check on atomic sleeping in __might_sleep() and schedule_bug() Michael Wang
2012-09-03 2:16 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 9:27 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-13 10:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-09-14 3:02 ` Michael Wang
2012-09-17 2:25 ` Michael Wang
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).