From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=YNYv=U2=vger.kernel.org=rcu-owner@kernel.org>
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=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham
	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 731BCC48BD6
	for <rcu@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:40:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501C820656
	for <rcu@archiver.kernel.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 15:40:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1726463AbfF0PkS (ORCPT <rfc822;rcu@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:40:18 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:57414 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1726445AbfF0PkS (ORCPT <rfc822;rcu@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:40:18 -0400
Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80)
        (envelope-from <bigeasy@linutronix.de>)
        id 1hgWVP-0000uq-A2; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:40:11 +0200
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:40:11 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs
Message-ID: <20190627154011.vbje64x6auaknhx4@linutronix.de>
References: <20190626135447.y24mvfuid5fifwjc@linutronix.de>
 <20190626162558.GY26519@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190627142436.GD215968@google.com>
 <20190627103455.01014276@gandalf.local.home>
 <20190627153031.GA249127@google.com>
 <CAEXW_YT5LgdP_9SrachU4ZrhV9a7o_DM8eBfgxj=n7yRRyS-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEXW_YT5LgdP_9SrachU4ZrhV9a7o_DM8eBfgxj=n7yRRyS-TQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: rcu-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <rcu.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: rcu@vger.kernel.org

On 2019-06-27 11:37:10 [-0400], Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Sebastian it would be nice if possible to trace where the
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special is set for this scenario of calling
> rcu_read_unlock_special, to give a clear idea about whether it was
> really because of an IPI. I guess we could also add additional RCU
> debug fields to task_struct (just for debugging) to see where there
> unlock_special is set.
> 
> Is there a test to reproduce this, or do I just boot an intel x86_64
> machine with "threadirqs" and run into it?

Do you want to send me a patch or should I send you my kvm image which
triggers the bug on boot?

Sebastian