From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING false positive?
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 15:15:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6E96F296-665D-4522-9531-914B7B340A89@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231123151345.GB38813@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 23 November 2023 15:13:45 GMT, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:05:15PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On 23 November 2023 15:01:19 GMT, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> >On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 09:00:41AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> >> Is this telling me that I'm no longer allowed to take a read_lock() in
>> >> a callback for an HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_HARD timer? Is that intentional?
>> >>
>> >> If I must, I can probably cope with this by using read_trylock()
>> >> instead. The object being locked is a cache, and we opportunistically
>> >> try to use it from the fast path but fall back to a slow path in
>> >> process context which will revalidate and try again. So if someone
>> >> *has* taken the write lock, it's a fairly safe bet that the cache is
>> >> going to be invalidated and we were going to take the slow path anyway.
>> >>
>> >> [ 62.336965] =============================
>> >> [ 62.336973] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
>> >> [ 62.336992] 6.7.0-rc1+ #1437 Tainted: G I
>> >> [ 62.337001] -----------------------------
>> >> [ 62.337008] qemu-system-x86/1935 is trying to lock:
>> >> [ 62.337017] ffffc900018fecc0 (&gpc->lock){....}-{3:3}, at: kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast+0xe7/0x460 [kvm]
>> >> [ 62.337133] other info that might help us debug this:
>> >> [ 62.337142] context-{2:2}
>> >> [ 62.337148] 2 locks held by qemu-system-x86/1935:
>> >> [ 62.337156] #0: ffff888108f780b0 (&vcpu->mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x7f/0x730 [kvm]
>> >> [ 62.337239] #1: ffffc900018ff2d8 (&kvm->srcu){.?.+}-{0:0}, at: kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast+0xcd/0x460 [kvm]
>> >> [ 62.337339] stack backtrace:
>> >> [ 62.337346] CPU: 7 PID: 1935 Comm: qemu-system-x86 Tainted: G I 6.7.0-rc1+ #1437
>> >> [ 62.337370] Hardware name: Intel Corporation S2600CW/S2600CW, BIOS SE5C610.86B.01.01.0008.021120151325 02/11/2015
>> >> [ 62.337384] Call Trace:
>> >> [ 62.337390] <IRQ>
>> >> [ 62.337395] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x90
>> >> [ 62.337407] __lock_acquire+0x7bb/0xbb0
>> >> [ 62.337416] ? __lock_acquire+0x4f0/0xbb0
>> >> [ 62.337425] lock_acquire.part.0+0xad/0x240
>> >> [ 62.337433] ? kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast+0xe7/0x460 [kvm]
>> >> [ 62.337512] ? rcu_is_watching+0xd/0x40
>> >> [ 62.337520] ? lock_acquire+0xf2/0x110
>> >> [ 62.337529] __raw_read_lock_irqsave+0x4e/0xa0
>> >> [ 62.337538] ? kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast+0xe7/0x460 [kvm]
>> >> [ 62.337604] kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast+0xe7/0x460 [kvm]
>> >> [ 62.337669] ? kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast+0xcd/0x460 [kvm]
>> >> [ 62.337734] xen_timer_callback+0x86/0xc0 [kvm]
>> >
>> >xen_timer_callback is HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_HARD, which means it will still
>> >run in IRQ context for PREEMPT_RT.
>> >
>> >OTOH read_lock_irqsave() is not a raw spinlock and will be turned into a
>> >blocking lock.
>> >
>> >This then gives scheduling from IRQ context, which is somewhat frowned
>> >upon.
>> >
>> >Warning is real and valid.
>>
>>
>> ... or at least will be when PREEMPT_RT turns the read_lock into a mutex?
>
>Right, this check specifically validates the RT lock nesting rules.
>
>> But there is no raw version of read_lock(). Can we have one please?
>
>Should be possible, but is somewhat non-trivial, it is very easy to
>create significant latencies with RW locks. Definitely not something I'm
>going to be able to do in a hurry.
>
>Also, I suspect Thomas is going to strongly suggest not going down that
>road and looking if this can be solved differently.
That's the "If I must…" paragraph above. I'll hack it up. Thanks.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-23 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-23 9:00 CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING false positive? David Woodhouse
2023-11-23 15:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-23 15:05 ` David Woodhouse
2023-11-23 15:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-23 15:15 ` David Woodhouse [this message]
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=6E96F296-665D-4522-9531-914B7B340A89@infradead.org \
--to=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).