1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
|
From 638391362ce6f052267016840a592cad59ee3eef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:23:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 157/347] rcu: Frob softirq test
Origin: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/4.19/older/patches-4.19.246-rt110.tar.xz
With RT_FULL we get the below wreckage:
[ 126.060484] =======================================================
[ 126.060486] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 126.060489] 3.0.1-rt10+ #30
[ 126.060490] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 126.060492] irq/24-eth0/1235 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 126.060495] (&(lock)->wait_lock#2){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81501c81>] rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55
[ 126.060503]
[ 126.060504] but task is already holding lock:
[ 126.060506] (&p->pi_lock){-...-.}, at: [<ffffffff81074fdc>] try_to_wake_up+0x35/0x429
[ 126.060511]
[ 126.060511] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 126.060513]
[ 126.060514]
[ 126.060514] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 126.060516]
[ 126.060516] -> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-...-.}:
[ 126.060519] [<ffffffff810afe9e>] lock_acquire+0x145/0x18a
[ 126.060524] [<ffffffff8150291e>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4b/0x85
[ 126.060527] [<ffffffff810b5aa4>] task_blocks_on_rt_mutex+0x36/0x20f
[ 126.060531] [<ffffffff815019bb>] rt_mutex_slowlock+0xd1/0x15a
[ 126.060534] [<ffffffff81501ae3>] rt_mutex_lock+0x2d/0x2f
[ 126.060537] [<ffffffff810d9020>] rcu_boost+0xad/0xde
[ 126.060541] [<ffffffff810d90ce>] rcu_boost_kthread+0x7d/0x9b
[ 126.060544] [<ffffffff8109a760>] kthread+0x99/0xa1
[ 126.060547] [<ffffffff81509b14>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
[ 126.060551]
[ 126.060552] -> #0 (&(lock)->wait_lock#2){+.+...}:
[ 126.060555] [<ffffffff810af1b8>] __lock_acquire+0x1157/0x1816
[ 126.060558] [<ffffffff810afe9e>] lock_acquire+0x145/0x18a
[ 126.060561] [<ffffffff8150279e>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73
[ 126.060564] [<ffffffff81501c81>] rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55
[ 126.060566] [<ffffffff81501ce7>] rt_mutex_unlock+0x27/0x29
[ 126.060569] [<ffffffff810d9f86>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x17e/0x1c4
[ 126.060573] [<ffffffff810da014>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x48/0x89
[ 126.060576] [<ffffffff8106847a>] select_task_rq_rt+0xc7/0xd5
[ 126.060580] [<ffffffff8107511c>] try_to_wake_up+0x175/0x429
[ 126.060583] [<ffffffff81075425>] wake_up_process+0x15/0x17
[ 126.060585] [<ffffffff81080a51>] wakeup_softirqd+0x24/0x26
[ 126.060590] [<ffffffff81081df9>] irq_exit+0x49/0x55
[ 126.060593] [<ffffffff8150a3bd>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8a/0x98
[ 126.060597] [<ffffffff81509793>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
[ 126.060600] [<ffffffff810d5952>] irq_forced_thread_fn+0x1b/0x44
[ 126.060603] [<ffffffff810d582c>] irq_thread+0xde/0x1af
[ 126.060606] [<ffffffff8109a760>] kthread+0x99/0xa1
[ 126.060608] [<ffffffff81509b14>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
[ 126.060611]
[ 126.060612] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 126.060614]
[ 126.060615] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 126.060616]
[ 126.060617] CPU0 CPU1
[ 126.060619] ---- ----
[ 126.060620] lock(&p->pi_lock);
[ 126.060623] lock(&(lock)->wait_lock);
[ 126.060625] lock(&p->pi_lock);
[ 126.060627] lock(&(lock)->wait_lock);
[ 126.060629]
[ 126.060629] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 126.060630]
[ 126.060632] 1 lock held by irq/24-eth0/1235:
[ 126.060633] #0: (&p->pi_lock){-...-.}, at: [<ffffffff81074fdc>] try_to_wake_up+0x35/0x429
[ 126.060638]
[ 126.060638] stack backtrace:
[ 126.060641] Pid: 1235, comm: irq/24-eth0 Not tainted 3.0.1-rt10+ #30
[ 126.060643] Call Trace:
[ 126.060644] <IRQ> [<ffffffff810acbde>] print_circular_bug+0x289/0x29a
[ 126.060651] [<ffffffff810af1b8>] __lock_acquire+0x1157/0x1816
[ 126.060655] [<ffffffff810ab3aa>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1f/0x99
[ 126.060658] [<ffffffff81501c81>] ? rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55
[ 126.060661] [<ffffffff810afe9e>] lock_acquire+0x145/0x18a
[ 126.060664] [<ffffffff81501c81>] ? rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55
[ 126.060668] [<ffffffff8150279e>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73
[ 126.060671] [<ffffffff81501c81>] ? rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55
[ 126.060674] [<ffffffff810d9655>] ? rcu_report_qs_rsp+0x87/0x8c
[ 126.060677] [<ffffffff81501c81>] rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55
[ 126.060680] [<ffffffff810d9ea3>] ? rcu_read_unlock_special+0x9b/0x1c4
[ 126.060683] [<ffffffff81501ce7>] rt_mutex_unlock+0x27/0x29
[ 126.060687] [<ffffffff810d9f86>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x17e/0x1c4
[ 126.060690] [<ffffffff810da014>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x48/0x89
[ 126.060693] [<ffffffff8106847a>] select_task_rq_rt+0xc7/0xd5
[ 126.060696] [<ffffffff810683da>] ? select_task_rq_rt+0x27/0xd5
[ 126.060701] [<ffffffff810a852a>] ? clockevents_program_event+0x8e/0x90
[ 126.060704] [<ffffffff8107511c>] try_to_wake_up+0x175/0x429
[ 126.060708] [<ffffffff810a95dc>] ? tick_program_event+0x1f/0x21
[ 126.060711] [<ffffffff81075425>] wake_up_process+0x15/0x17
[ 126.060715] [<ffffffff81080a51>] wakeup_softirqd+0x24/0x26
[ 126.060718] [<ffffffff81081df9>] irq_exit+0x49/0x55
[ 126.060721] [<ffffffff8150a3bd>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8a/0x98
[ 126.060724] [<ffffffff81509793>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
[ 126.060726] <EOI> [<ffffffff81072855>] ? migrate_disable+0x75/0x12d
[ 126.060733] [<ffffffff81080a61>] ? local_bh_disable+0xe/0x1f
[ 126.060736] [<ffffffff81080a70>] ? local_bh_disable+0x1d/0x1f
[ 126.060739] [<ffffffff810d5952>] irq_forced_thread_fn+0x1b/0x44
[ 126.060742] [<ffffffff81502ac0>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x3b/0x59
[ 126.060745] [<ffffffff810d582c>] irq_thread+0xde/0x1af
[ 126.060748] [<ffffffff810d5937>] ? irq_thread_fn+0x3a/0x3a
[ 126.060751] [<ffffffff810d574e>] ? irq_finalize_oneshot+0xd1/0xd1
[ 126.060754] [<ffffffff810d574e>] ? irq_finalize_oneshot+0xd1/0xd1
[ 126.060757] [<ffffffff8109a760>] kthread+0x99/0xa1
[ 126.060761] [<ffffffff81509b14>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
[ 126.060764] [<ffffffff81069ed7>] ? finish_task_switch+0x87/0x10a
[ 126.060768] [<ffffffff81502ec4>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe
[ 126.060771] [<ffffffff8109a6c7>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x8c/0x8c
[ 126.060774] [<ffffffff81509b10>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
Because irq_exit() does:
void irq_exit(void)
{
account_system_vtime(current);
trace_hardirq_exit();
sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET);
if (!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending())
invoke_softirq();
...
}
Which triggers a wakeup, which uses RCU, now if the interrupted task has
t->rcu_read_unlock_special set, the rcu usage from the wakeup will end
up in rcu_read_unlock_special(). rcu_read_unlock_special() will test
for in_irq(), which will fail as we just decremented preempt_count
with IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET, and in_sering_softirq(), which for
PREEMPT_RT_FULL reads:
int in_serving_softirq(void)
{
int res;
preempt_disable();
res = __get_cpu_var(local_softirq_runner) == current;
preempt_enable();
return res;
}
Which will thus also fail, resulting in the above wreckage.
The 'somewhat' ugly solution is to open-code the preempt_count() test
in rcu_read_unlock_special().
Also, we're not at all sure how ->rcu_read_unlock_special gets set
here... so this is very likely a bandaid and more thought is required.
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
---
kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
index 35f3552b7463..e9ce51e19e87 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
@@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
}
/* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block, complain if they get here. */
- if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
+ if (preempt_count() & (HARDIRQ_MASK | SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)) {
lockdep_rcu_suspicious(__FILE__, __LINE__,
"rcu_read_unlock() from irq or softirq with blocking in critical section!!!\n");
pr_alert("->rcu_read_unlock_special: %#x (b: %d, enq: %d nq: %d)\n",
--
2.36.1
|
