Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/idle: Fix arch_cpu_idle() vs tracing

From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
	Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/idle: Fix arch_cpu_idle() vs tracing
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 15:51:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201201145116.GX2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yt9dh7p54u50.fsf@linux.ibm.com>

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 12:56:27PM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 01:00:03PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:41:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> > We call arch_cpu_idle() with RCU disabled, but then use
> >> > local_irq_{en,dis}able(), which invokes tracing, which relies on RCU.
> >> > 
> >> > Switch all arch_cpu_idle() implementations to use
> >> > raw_local_irq_{en,dis}able() and carefully manage the
> >> > lockdep,rcu,tracing state like we do in entry.
> >> > 
> >> > (XXX: we really should change arch_cpu_idle() to not return with
> >> > interrupts enabled)
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Has this patch been tested on s390 ? Reason for asking is that it causes
> >> all my s390 emulations to crash. Reverting it fixes the problem.
> >
> > My understanding is that it changes the error on s390. Previously it
> > would complain about the local_irq_enable() in arch_cpu_idle(), now it
> > complains when taking an interrupt during idle.
> 
> I looked into adding the required functionality for s390, but the code
> we would need to add to entry.S is rather large - as you noted we would
> have to duplicate large portions of irqentry_enter() into our code.
> Given that s390 was fine before that patch, can you revert it and submit
> it again during the next merge window?

So the thing that got me started here was:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/yt9dimbm79qi.fsf@linux.ibm.com/

And I got a very similar report from Mark for arm64. I'm not sure what
you meanwhile did to get rid of that. But I'm struggling to understand
how s390 can work on v5.10-rc5.

There's just too much calling into tracing while RCU is stopped.