LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:24:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110715172416.GE2327@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310750204.27864.69.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:16:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 10:03 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:55:57PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 15:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > > OK, so the latter case cannot happen (rcu_preempt_check_callbacks only
> > > > sets NEED_QS when rcu_read_lock_nesting), we need two interrupts for
> > > > this to happen.
> > > > 
> > > > rcu_read_lock()
> > > > 
> > > >  <IRQ>
> > > >    |= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS
> > > > 
> > > > rcu_read_unlock()
> > > >   __rcu_read_unlock()
> > > >    --rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > > >      <IRQ>
> > > > 	ttwu()
> > > >           rcu_read_lock()
> > > > 	  rcu_read_unlock()
> > > > 	    rcu_read_unlock_special()
> > > > 	      *BANG*
> > > >    rcu_read_unlock_special()
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > What about this patch? Not even compiled tested.
> > 
> > This runs afoul of the restriction that ->rcu_read_unlock_special must
> > be updated with irqs disabled, please see below.
> 
> What about changing special into a local_t, then it could be updated
> atomically wrt interrupts (not for other CPUs).

I would like to avoid increasing the cost of the rcu_read_unlock()
fastpath.  I still believe that it is possible to fix this without
increasing that cost.

> > I am also missing what the goal is -- I don't immediatly see how this
> > prevents the scenario that Ed ran into, for example.
> 
> >From the example that Peter showed above:
> 
> The interrupt happens after decrementing lock_nesting, and then when it
> did the rcu_read_unlock(), it would call special() because the ->special
> variable was set. My patch makes it so that ->special will *not* be set.

But the rcu_read_unlock() called from within the irq handler would
take a second snapshot of ->special.  It could then enter
rcu_read_unlock_special().

> We will probably need to put a preempt_disable() in there too, to keep
> the ->special being zero and scheduled out.

But ->rcu_read_unlock_special is in the task structure, so would move
with the task.  But yes, that sort of thing is one reason that I would
like to keep ->rcu_read_unlock_special modifications under irq-disable.

> > 								Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > -- Steve
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > > index 14dc7dd..e3545fa 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
> > > @@ -284,18 +284,17 @@ static struct list_head *rcu_next_node_entry(struct task_struct *t,
> > >   * notify RCU core processing or task having blocked during the RCU
> > >   * read-side critical section.
> > >   */
> > > -static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > > +static int rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t, int special)
> > >  {
> > >  	int empty;
> > >  	int empty_exp;
> > >  	unsigned long flags;
> > >  	struct list_head *np;
> > >  	struct rcu_node *rnp;
> > > -	int special;
> > > 
> > >  	/* NMI handlers cannot block and cannot safely manipulate state. */
> > >  	if (in_nmi())
> > > -		return;
> > > +		return special;
> > > 
> > >  	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > 
> > > @@ -303,7 +302,6 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > >  	 * If RCU core is waiting for this CPU to exit critical section,
> > >  	 * let it know that we have done so.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	special = t->rcu_read_unlock_special;
> > >  	if (special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS) {
> > >  		rcu_preempt_qs(smp_processor_id());
> > >  	}
> > > @@ -311,7 +309,7 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > >  	/* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block. */
> > >  	if (in_irq()) {
> > >  		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > > -		return;
> > > +		return special;
> > >  	}
> > > 
> > >  	/* Clean up if blocked during RCU read-side critical section. */
> > > @@ -373,6 +371,7 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > >  	} else {
> > >  		local_irq_restore(flags);
> > >  	}
> > > +	return special;
> > >  }
> > > 
> > >  /*
> > > @@ -385,13 +384,21 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
> > >  void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct task_struct *t = current;
> > > +	int special;
> > > 
> > > +	special = ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special);
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Clear special here to prevent interrupts from seeing it
> > > +	 * enabled after decrementing lock_nesting and calling
> > > +	 * rcu_read_unlock_special().
> > > +	 */
> > 
> > Any change to ->rcu_read_unlock_special from an irq handler that happens
> > here is lost.  Changes to ->rcu_read_unlock_special must be done with
> > irqs disabled.  And I hope to avoid irq disabling on the rcu_read_unlock()
> > fastpath.
> 
> We can check if special changed afterwards. Hmm, would a xchg be bad to
> do?

I would really like to avoid that in the common rcu_read_unlock() fastpath.

> > > +	t->rcu_read_unlock_special = 0;
> > >  	barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> > >  	--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > >  	barrier();  /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
> > > -	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > > -	    unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > > -		rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > > +	if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 && special)
> > > +		special = rcu_read_unlock_special(t, special);
> > 
> > And changes to ->rcu_read_unlock_special from an irq handler that happens
> > here are also lost.
> 
> How expensive is xchg?
> 
> 	special = xchg(&t->rcu_read_lock_special, 0);
> 	[..]
> 	special = xchg(&t->rcu_read_lock_special, special);
> 	/* check special */
> 
> Or is xchg too expensive for rcu_read_unlock()?

It is a bit expensive for that fastpath.

							Thanx, Paul

> -- Steve
> 
> > 
> > > +	t->rcu_read_unlock_special = special;
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > >  	WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> > >  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  reply	other threads:[~2011-07-15 17:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-07-14 14:49 Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-14 16:57   ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:16     ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 19:15   ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 19:34     ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:38       ` Dave Jones
2011-07-14 20:33         ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:38       ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 16:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:02   ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:05     ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 17:32       ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:46         ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 19:18           ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:41             ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 20:33               ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 11:05             ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 11:29               ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 11:35                 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 11:39                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 18:11                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 12:42                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 13:07                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 14:36                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 15:04                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 15:59                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 16:11                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 16:56                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 21:48                               ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 22:04                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-16 19:42                                   ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-17  0:02                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-17  1:56                                       ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-17 14:28                                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-18 15:15                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-18  9:29                                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-18 15:29                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 16:55                     ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 17:03                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 17:16                         ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 17:24                           ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2011-07-15 17:42                             ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 18:33                               ` Paul E. McKenney
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-07 16:22 Justin P. Mattock
2011-08-11 20:57 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-12-06 10:11 Richard Zidlicky
2009-10-10 23:09 John Kacur
2007-02-08 15:03 Pedro M. López
2006-10-16 14:05 alpha @ steudten Engineering
2006-10-16 14:32 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-16 15:42   ` Randy Dunlap
2006-10-16 15:46     ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-19  6:02   ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-19  6:30     ` Nick Piggin

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=20110715172416.GE2327@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=edt@aei.ca \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected' \
    /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

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).