From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
vlevenetz@mm-sol.com, vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org,
alex.elder@linaro.org, johan@kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 16:33:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <163184622.ctfAvoN0Mo@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160714141216.GC13151@quack2.suse.cz>
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 04:12:16 PM Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 13-07-16 14:45:07, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Cc Petr Mladek.
> >
> > On (07/12/16 16:19), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > [..]
> > > Okay, we have tracked this BUG and its really interesting.
> >
> > good find!
> >
> > > I hacked the platform's serial driver to implement a putchar() routine
> > > that simply writes to the FIFO in polling mode, that helped us in
> > > tracing on where we are going wrong.
> > >
> > > The problem is that we are running asynchronous printks and we call
> > > wake_up_process() from the last running CPU which has disabled
> > > interrupts. That takes us to: try_to_wake_up().
> > >
> > > In our case the CPU gets deadlocked on this line in try_to_wake_up().
> > >
> > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> >
> > yeah, printk() can't handle these types of recursion. it can prevent
> > printk() calls issued from within the logbuf_lock spinlock section,
> > with some limitations:
> >
> > if (unlikely(logbuf_cpu == smp_processor_id())) {
> > recursion_bug = true;
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> > logbuf_cpu = this_cpu;
> > ...
> > logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> > raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> >
> > so should, for instance, raw_spin_unlock() generate spin_dump(), printk()
> > will blow up (both sync and async), because logbuf_cpu is already reset.
> > it may look that async printk added another source of recursion - wake_up().
> > but, apparently, this is not exactly correct. because there is already a
> > wake_up() call in console_unlock() - up().
> >
> > printk()
> > if (logbuf_cpu == smp_processor_id())
> > return;
> >
> > raw_spin_lock(&logbuf_lock);
> > logbuf_cpu = this_cpu;
> > ...
> > logbuf_cpu = UINT_MAX;
> > raw_spin_unlock(&logbuf_lock);
> >
> > console_trylock()
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock) << ***
> > raw_spin_unlock_irqsave(&sem->lock) << ***
> >
> > console_unlock()
> > up()
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sem->lock) << ***
> > __up()
> > wake_up_process()
> > try_to_wake_up() << *** in may places
> >
> >
> > *** a printk() call from here will kill the system. either it will
> > recurse printk(), or spin forever in 'nested' printk() on one of
> > the already taken spin locks.
>
> Exactly. Calling printk() from certain parts of the kernel (like scheduler
> code or timer code) has been always unsafe because printk itself uses these
> parts and so it can lead to deadlocks. That's why printk_deffered() has
> been introduced as you mention below.
>
> And with sync printk the above deadlock doesn't trigger only by chance - if
> there happened to be a waiter on console_sem while we suspend, the same
> deadlock would trigger because up(&console_sem) will try to wake him up and
> the warning in timekeeping code will cause recursive printk.
>
> So I think your patch doesn't really address the real issue - it only
> works around the particular WARN_ON(timekeeping_enabled) warning but if
> there was a different warning in timekeeping code which would trigger, it
> has a potential for causing recursive printk deadlock (and indeed we had
> such issues previously - see e.g. 504d58745c9c "timer: Fix lock inversion
> between hrtimer_bases.lock and scheduler locks").
>
> So there are IMHO two issues here worth looking at:
>
> 1) I didn't find how a wakeup would would lead to calling to ktime_get() in
> the current upstream kernel or even current RT kernel. Maybe this is a
> problem specific to the 3.10 kernel you are using? If yes, we don't have to
> do anything for current upstream AFAIU.
>
> If I just missed how wakeup can call into ktime_get() in current upstream,
> there is another question:
>
> 2) Is it OK that printk calls wakeup so late during suspend? I believe it
> is but I'm neither scheduler nor suspend expert.
I don't think it really is OK. Nothing will wake up for sure at this point,
so why to do that in the first place?
> If it is OK, and wakeup can lead to ktime_get() in current upstream, then
> this contradicts the check WARN_ON(timekeeping_suspended) in ktime_get() and
> something is wrong.
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-14 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-01 16:59 [Query] Preemption (hogging) of the work handler Viresh Kumar
2016-07-01 17:22 ` Tejun Heo
2016-07-01 17:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-06 18:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-06 19:23 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-07-06 19:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-11 10:26 ` Jan Kara
2016-07-11 15:44 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-11 22:35 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-11 22:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-11 22:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-12 12:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-12 13:02 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-12 13:56 ` Petr Mladek
2016-07-12 14:04 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-12 9:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-12 12:52 ` Petr Mladek
2016-07-12 13:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-12 17:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-12 19:59 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-12 20:08 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-13 7:00 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-13 12:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-13 12:57 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-13 13:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-12 14:03 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-12 14:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-14 23:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-15 13:11 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-15 15:57 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-12 23:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-13 0:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-13 5:45 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-13 15:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-13 23:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-13 23:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-13 23:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2016-07-14 0:55 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-14 1:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-14 1:32 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-14 21:57 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-14 21:55 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-14 14:12 ` Jan Kara
2016-07-14 14:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2016-07-14 14:39 ` Jan Kara
2016-07-14 14:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-14 14:55 ` Jan Kara
2016-07-14 22:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-14 14:34 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-14 15:03 ` Jan Kara
2016-07-14 22:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-18 11:01 ` Jan Kara
2016-07-18 11:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-07-29 20:42 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-07-30 2:12 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2016-07-11 19:03 ` Viresh Kumar
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=163184622.ctfAvoN0Mo@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.elder@linaro.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=johan@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vaibhav.hiremath@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vlevenetz@mm-sol.com \
/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 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).