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 558C6C48BE7 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7292064A for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:42:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726563AbfF0SmA (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:42:00 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:58016 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726384AbfF0SmA (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:42:00 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5RIbDqw071829; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:41:08 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2td0mmqmju-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:41:07 -0400 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5RIdflO079093; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:41:07 -0400 Received: from ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (83.d6.3fa9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.63.214.131]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2td0mmqmj0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:41:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5RIda18024206; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:41:06 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.27]) by ppma01dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2t9by7g8k1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:41:06 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23032.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x5RIf5Sd53936468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:41:05 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3402CB206A; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:41:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069DDB2064; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 18:41:05 +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 18:41:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1104E16C6BA0; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:41:07 -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 Message-ID: <20190627184107.GA26519@linux.ibm.com> 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> <20190627173831.GW26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190627181638.GA209455@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190627181638.GA209455@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 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-1906270212 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 02:16:38PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:38:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > 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. > > Makes sense now, thanks. > > > > 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. > > Makes sense. > > > > 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? > > I am not sure if this will fix all cases though? > > I think the crux of the problem is doing a recursive wake up. The threaded > IRQ probably just happens to be causing it here, it seems to me this problem > can also occur on a non-threaded irq system (say current_reader() in your > example executed in a scheduler path in process-context and not from an > interrupt). Is that not possible? In the non-threaded case, invoking raise_softirq*() from hardirq context just sets a bit in a per-CPU variable. Now, to Sebastian's point, we are only sort of in hardirq context in this case due to being called from irq_exit(), but the failure we are seeing might well be a ways downstream of the actual root-cause bug. > I think the fix should be to prevent the wake-up not based on whether we are > in hard/soft-interrupt mode but that we are doing the rcu_read_unlock() from > a scheduler path (if we can detect that) Or just don't do the wakeup at all, if it comes to that. I don't know of any way to determine whether rcu_read_unlock() is being called from the scheduler, but it has been some time since I asked Peter Zijlstra about that. Of course, unconditionally refusing to do the wakeup might not be happy thing for NO_HZ_FULL kernels that don't implement IRQ work. > I lost track of this code: > if ((exp || in_irq()) && irqs_were_disabled && use_softirq && > (in_irq() || !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs)) { > > Was this patch posted to the list? I will blame it to try to get some > context. It sounds like you added more conditions on when to kick the > softirq. This is from the dev branch of my -rcu tree. It has at least one patch in this area that is currently slated for v5.4, so I would not have sent that as part of an official patch series. > > 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? > > /me needs to understand why the irq work stuff was added here as well. Have > my work cut out for the day! ;-) New code, so more likely to contain bugs than usual. ;-) The point was to get a wakeup soonish without risk of rq/pi deadlocks. Thanx, Paul > thanks, > > - Joel > > > > > > 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 > > >