Re: [PATCH rcu 02/18] rcu: Fix stall-warning deadlock due to non-release of rcu_node ->lock

[Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>]

On 08/04/21 15:33, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 02:50:17PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 08/03/21 09:28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 05:12:21PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > On 08/03/21 08:52, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 03:24:58PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 07/21/21 13:21, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > From: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If rcu_print_task_stall() is invoked on an rcu_node structure that does
> > > > > > > not contain any tasks blocking the current grace period, it takes an
> > > > > > > early exit that fails to release that rcu_node structure's lock.  This
> > > > > > > results in a self-deadlock, which is detected by lockdep.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > To reproduce this bug:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --allcpus --duration 3 --trust-make --configs "TREE03" --kconfig "CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y" --bootargs "rcutorture.stall_cpu=30 rcutorture.stall_cpu_block=1 rcutorture.fwd_progress=0 rcutorture.test_boost=0"
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This will also result in other complaints, including RCU's scheduler
> > > > > > > hook complaining about blocking rather than preemption and an rcutorture
> > > > > > > writer stall.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Only a partial RCU CPU stall warning message will be printed because of
> > > > > > > the self-deadlock.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This commit therefore releases the lock on the rcu_print_task_stall()
> > > > > > > function's early exit path.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Fixes: c583bcb8f5ed ("rcu: Don't invoke try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() with irqs disabled")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yanfei Xu <yanfei.xu@windriver.com>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We are seeing similar stall/deadlock issue on android 5.10 kernel, is the fix
> > > > > > relevant here? Trying to apply the patches and test, but the problem is tricky
> > > > > > to reproduce so thought worth asking first.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looks like the relevant symptoms to me, so I suggest trying this series
> > > > > from -rcu:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 8baded711edc ("rcu: Fix to include first blocked task in stall warning")
> > > > > f6b3995a8b56 ("rcu: Fix stall-warning deadlock due to non-release of rcu_node ->lock")
> > > > 
> > > > Great thanks. These are the ones we picked as the rest was a bit tricky to
> > > > apply on 5.10.
> > > > 
> > > > While at it, we see these errors too though they look harmless. They happen
> > > > all the time
> > > > 
> > > > 	[  595.292685] NOHZ tick-stop error: Non-RCU local softirq work is pending, handler #02!!!"}
> > > > 	[  595.301467] NOHZ tick-stop error: Non-RCU local softirq work is pending, handler #08!!!"}
> > > > 	[  595.389353] NOHZ tick-stop error: Non-RCU local softirq work is pending, handler #08!!!"}
> > > > 	[  595.397454] NOHZ tick-stop error: Non-RCU local softirq work is pending, handler #08!!!"}
> > > > 	[  595.417112] NOHZ tick-stop error: Non-RCU local softirq work is pending, handler #08!!!"}
> > > > 	[  595.425215] NOHZ tick-stop error: Non-RCU local softirq work is pending, handler #08!!!"}
> > > > 	[  595.438807] NOHZ tick-stop error: Non-RCU local softirq work is pending, handler #08!!!"}
> > > > 
> > > > I used to see them on mainline a while back but seem to have been fixed.
> > > > Something didn't get backported to 5.10 perhaps?
> > > 
> > > I believe that you need at least this one:
> > > 
> > > 47c218dcae65 ("tick/sched: Prevent false positive softirq pending warnings on RT")
> > 
> > After looking at the content of the patch, it's not related. We don't run with
> > PREEMPT_RT.
> > 
> > I think we're hitting a genuine issue, most likely due to out-of-tree changes
> > done by Android to fix RT latency problems against softirq (surprise surprise).
> > 
> > Thanks for your help and sorry for the noise.
> 
> No problem!
> 
> But I used to see this very frequently in non-PREEMPT_RT rcutorture runs,
> and there was a patch from Thomas that made them go away.  So it might
> be worth looking at has patches in this area since 5.10.  Maybe I just
> got confused and picked the wrong one.

My suspicion turned out to be correct at the end.. So no issue on vanilla 5.10.

These warnings were hard to miss at some point (for me at least) in mainline
for me too, that's why I suspected something was not backported. All good now.

Cheers

--
Qais Yousef