From 20231ac4f76b0908a85e38ea5e85cc79ec1967b5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 00:23:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 183/365] rcu: Frob softirq test 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: [] rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55 [ 126.060503] [ 126.060504] but task is already holding lock: [ 126.060506] (&p->pi_lock){-...-.}, at: [] 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] [] lock_acquire+0x145/0x18a [ 126.060524] [] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4b/0x85 [ 126.060527] [] task_blocks_on_rt_mutex+0x36/0x20f [ 126.060531] [] rt_mutex_slowlock+0xd1/0x15a [ 126.060534] [] rt_mutex_lock+0x2d/0x2f [ 126.060537] [] rcu_boost+0xad/0xde [ 126.060541] [] rcu_boost_kthread+0x7d/0x9b [ 126.060544] [] kthread+0x99/0xa1 [ 126.060547] [] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [ 126.060551] [ 126.060552] -> #0 (&(lock)->wait_lock#2){+.+...}: [ 126.060555] [] __lock_acquire+0x1157/0x1816 [ 126.060558] [] lock_acquire+0x145/0x18a [ 126.060561] [] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73 [ 126.060564] [] rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55 [ 126.060566] [] rt_mutex_unlock+0x27/0x29 [ 126.060569] [] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x17e/0x1c4 [ 126.060573] [] __rcu_read_unlock+0x48/0x89 [ 126.060576] [] select_task_rq_rt+0xc7/0xd5 [ 126.060580] [] try_to_wake_up+0x175/0x429 [ 126.060583] [] wake_up_process+0x15/0x17 [ 126.060585] [] wakeup_softirqd+0x24/0x26 [ 126.060590] [] irq_exit+0x49/0x55 [ 126.060593] [] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8a/0x98 [ 126.060597] [] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20 [ 126.060600] [] irq_forced_thread_fn+0x1b/0x44 [ 126.060603] [] irq_thread+0xde/0x1af [ 126.060606] [] kthread+0x99/0xa1 [ 126.060608] [] 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: [] 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] [] print_circular_bug+0x289/0x29a [ 126.060651] [] __lock_acquire+0x1157/0x1816 [ 126.060655] [] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1f/0x99 [ 126.060658] [] ? rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55 [ 126.060661] [] lock_acquire+0x145/0x18a [ 126.060664] [] ? rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55 [ 126.060668] [] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x73 [ 126.060671] [] ? rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55 [ 126.060674] [] ? rcu_report_qs_rsp+0x87/0x8c [ 126.060677] [] rt_mutex_slowunlock+0x16/0x55 [ 126.060680] [] ? rcu_read_unlock_special+0x9b/0x1c4 [ 126.060683] [] rt_mutex_unlock+0x27/0x29 [ 126.060687] [] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x17e/0x1c4 [ 126.060690] [] __rcu_read_unlock+0x48/0x89 [ 126.060693] [] select_task_rq_rt+0xc7/0xd5 [ 126.060696] [] ? select_task_rq_rt+0x27/0xd5 [ 126.060701] [] ? clockevents_program_event+0x8e/0x90 [ 126.060704] [] try_to_wake_up+0x175/0x429 [ 126.060708] [] ? tick_program_event+0x1f/0x21 [ 126.060711] [] wake_up_process+0x15/0x17 [ 126.060715] [] wakeup_softirqd+0x24/0x26 [ 126.060718] [] irq_exit+0x49/0x55 [ 126.060721] [] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x8a/0x98 [ 126.060724] [] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20 [ 126.060726] [] ? migrate_disable+0x75/0x12d [ 126.060733] [] ? local_bh_disable+0xe/0x1f [ 126.060736] [] ? local_bh_disable+0x1d/0x1f [ 126.060739] [] irq_forced_thread_fn+0x1b/0x44 [ 126.060742] [] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x3b/0x59 [ 126.060745] [] irq_thread+0xde/0x1af [ 126.060748] [] ? irq_thread_fn+0x3a/0x3a [ 126.060751] [] ? irq_finalize_oneshot+0xd1/0xd1 [ 126.060754] [] ? irq_finalize_oneshot+0xd1/0xd1 [ 126.060757] [] kthread+0x99/0xa1 [ 126.060761] [] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [ 126.060764] [] ? finish_task_switch+0x87/0x10a [ 126.060768] [] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe [ 126.060771] [] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x8c/0x8c [ 126.060774] [] ? 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 Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra --- 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 554ea54e8d61..67894f9678bf 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h @@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ 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", -- 2.28.0