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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT 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 667A4C48BD7 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:38:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420F52086D for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:38:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727035AbfF0Rih (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:37 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:49818 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726885AbfF0Rig (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:36 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098419.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5RHcQOc020517 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:35 -0400 Received: from e16.ny.us.ibm.com (e16.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.206]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2td0qymy88-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:38:35 -0400 Received: from localhost by e16.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:38:33 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.24) by e16.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.203) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:38:30 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x5RHcTdE36176382 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:38:29 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB3DB2066; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:38:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF97B205F; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:38:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.26]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:38:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 18F2216C1C01; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:38:31 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Steven Rostedt , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , rcu , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Josh Triplett , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190626135447.y24mvfuid5fifwjc@linutronix.de> <20190626162558.GY26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190627142436.GD215968@google.com> <20190627103455.01014276@gandalf.local.home> <20190627153031.GA249127@google.com> <20190627155506.GU26519@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19062717-0072-0000-0000-00000441C9FA X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011342; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000286; SDB=6.01224097; UDB=6.00644243; IPR=6.01005286; MB=3.00027492; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-06-27 17:38:32 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19062717-0073-0000-0000-00004CB1F7E0 Message-Id: <20190627173831.GW26519@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-06-27_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906270203 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:47:24PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:55 AM Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:30:31AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:34:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:24:36 -0400 > > > > Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > > > > > > > > What am I missing here? > > > > > > > > > > This issue I think is > > > > > > > > > > (in normal process context) > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(rq_lock); // which disables both preemption and interrupt > > > > > // but this was done in normal process context, > > > > > // not from IRQ handler > > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > > > > <---------- IPI comes in and sets exp_hint > > > > > > > > How would an IPI come in here with interrupts disabled? > > > > > > > > -- Steve > > > > > > This is true, could it be rcu_read_unlock_special() got called for some > > > *other* reason other than the IPI then? > > > > > > Per Sebastian's stack trace of the recursive lock scenario, it is happening > > > during cpu_acct_charge() which is called with the rq_lock held. > > > > > > The only other reasons I know off to call rcu_read_unlock_special() are if > > > 1. the tick indicated that the CPU has to report a QS > > > 2. an IPI in the middle of the reader section for expedited GPs > > > 3. preemption in the middle of a preemptible RCU reader section > > > > 4. Some previous reader section was IPIed or preempted, but either > > interrupts, softirqs, or preemption was disabled across the > > rcu_read_unlock() of that previous reader section. > > Hi Paul, I did not fully understand 4. The previous RCU reader section > could not have been IPI'ed or been preempted if interrupts were > disabled across. Also, if softirq/preempt is disabled across the > previous reader section, the previous reader could not be preempted in > these case. Like this, courtesy of the consolidation of RCU flavors: previous_reader() { rcu_read_lock(); do_something(); /* Preemption happened here. */ local_irq_disable(); /* Cannot be the scheduler! */ do_something_else(); rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must defer QS, task still queued. */ do_some_other_thing(); local_irq_enable(); } current_reader() /* QS from previous_reader() is still deferred. */ { local_irq_disable(); /* Might be the scheduler. */ do_whatever(); rcu_read_lock(); do_whatever_else(); rcu_read_unlock(); /* Must still defer reporting QS. */ do_whatever_comes_to_mind(); local_irq_enable(); } Both instances of rcu_read_unlock() need to cause some later thing to report the quiescent state, and in some cases it will do a wakeup. Now, previous_reader()'s IRQ disabling cannot be due to scheduler rq/pi locks due to the rule about holding them across the entire RCU reader if they are held across the rcu_read_unlock(). But current_reader()'s IRQ disabling might well be due to the scheduler rq/pi locks, so current_reader() must be careful about doing wakeups. > That leaves us with the only scenario where the previous reader was > IPI'ed while softirq/preempt was disabled across it. Is that what you > meant? No, but that can also happen. > But in this scenario, the previous reader should have set > exp_hint to false in the previous reader's rcu_read_unlock_special() > invocation itself. So I would think t->rcu_read_unlock_special should > be 0 during the new reader's invocation thus I did not understand how > rcu_read_unlock_special can be called because of a previous reader. Yes, exp_hint would unconditionally be set to false in the first reader's rcu_read_unlock(). But .blocked won't be. > I'll borrow some of that confused color paint if you don't mind ;-) > And we should document this somewhere for future sanity preservation > :-D Or adjust the code and requirements to make it more sane, if feasible. My current (probably wildly unreliable) guess that the conditions in rcu_read_unlock_special() need adjusting. I was assuming that in_irq() implies a hardirq context, in other words that in_irq() would return false from a threaded interrupt handler. If in_irq() instead returns true from within a threaded interrupt handler, then this code in rcu_read_unlock_special() needs fixing: if ((exp || in_irq()) && irqs_were_disabled && use_softirq && (in_irq() || !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs)) { // Using softirq, safe to awaken, and we get // no help from enabling irqs, unlike bh/preempt. raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ); The fix would be replacing the calls to in_irq() with something that returns true only if called from within a hardirq context. Thoughts? Ugh. Same question about IRQ work. Will the current use of it by rcu_read_unlock_special() cause breakage in the presence of threaded interrupt handlers? Thanx, Paul > thanks, > - Joel > > > > > > > I -think- that this is what Sebastian is seeing. > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > 1. and 2. are not possible because interrupts are disabled, that's why the > > > wakeup_softirq even happened. > > > 3. is not possible because we are holding rq_lock in the RCU reader section. > > > > > > So I am at a bit of a loss how this can happen :-( > > > > > > Spurious call to rcu_read_unlock_special() may be when it should not have > > > been called? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > - Joel