From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S965293AbbKDKuO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 4 Nov 2015 05:50:14 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:46418 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932467AbbKDKuM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 4 Nov 2015 05:50:12 -0500
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 11:50:10 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: perf related lockdep bug
Message-ID: <20151104105010.GA11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151104051717.GA6098@codemonkey.org.uk>
 <20151104102151.GG17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151104102800.GZ11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151104102800.GZ11639@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:28:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:21:51AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > The problem appears to be due to the new RCU expedited grace period
> > stuff, with rcu_read_unlock() now randomly trying to acquire locks it
> > previously didn't.
> > 
> > Lemme go look at those rcu bits again..
> 
> Paul, I think this is because of:
> 
>   8203d6d0ee78 ("rcu: Use single-stage IPI algorithm for RCU expedited grace period")
> 
> What happens is that the IPI comes in and tags any random
> rcu_read_unlock() with the special bit, which then goes on and takes
> locks.
> 
> Now the problem is that we have scheduler activity inside this lock;
> the one reported lockdep seems easy enough to fix, see below.
> 
> I'll got and see if there's more sites than can cause this.

*sigh* yes, there's gobs more. In fact the very first one I looked at:

rcu_dump_cpu_stacks()
  raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
  dump_cpu_task()
    pr_info()

That too will end up doing wakeups..

idem:
 - print_other_cpu_stall()
 - rcu_print_details_task_stall_rnp()


So just like you had to pull out all the rcu_gp_kthead_wake() calls from
under rnp->lock, so too must we pull out all implied wakeups, which very
much include printk().