Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755501Ab3HZCfS (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:35:18 -0400
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:38524 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755241Ab3HZCfQ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 25 Aug 2013 22:35:16 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,955,1367942400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="8300551"
Message-ID: <521ABFE4.3070703@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:39:32 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100921 Fedora/3.1.4-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Lai Jiangshan <eag0628@gmail.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] rcu: eliminate deadlock for rcu read site
References: <1375871104-10688-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> <1375871104-10688-6-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130808204020.GA31127@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5205B6FF.7060502@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130812135309.GF27162@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20130812101008.27048d83@gandalf.local.home> <CACvQF51-oAGkdxwku+orKSQ=SZd1A4saXzkrgcRGi+KnZUZYxQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130822103431.7abc09ab@gandalf.local.home> <5217009F.5030309@cn.fujitsu.com> <CACvQF51kcLrJsa=zBKhLkJfFBh109TW+Zrepm+tRxmEp0gALbQ@mail.gmail.com> <20130825174304.GL3871@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130825174304.GL3871@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at
 2013/08/26 10:33:07,
	Serialize by Router on mailserver/fnst(Release 8.5.3|September 15, 2011) at
 2013/08/26 10:33:13,
	Serialize complete at 2013/08/26 10:33:13
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 12267
Lines: 323

On 08/26/2013 01:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:19:37PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>> Hi, Steven
>>
>> Any comments about this patch?
> 
> For whatever it is worth, it ran without incident for two hours worth
> of rcutorture on my P5 test (boosting but no CPU hotplug).
> 
> Lai, do you have a specific test for this patch?  

Also rcutorture.
(A special module is added to ensure all paths of my code are covered.)

> Your deadlock
> scenario looks plausible, but is apparently not occurring in the
> mainline kernel.

Yes, you can leave this possible bug until the real problem happens
or just disallow overlapping.
I can write some debug code for it which allow us find out
the problems earlier.

I guess this is an useful usage pattern of rcu:

again:
	rcu_read_lock();
	obj = read_dereference(ptr);
	spin_lock_XX(obj->lock);
	if (obj is invalid) {
		spin_unlock_XX(obj->lock);
		rcu_read_unlock();
		goto again;
	}
	rcu_read_unlock();
	# use obj
	spin_unlock_XX(obj->lock);

If we encourage this pattern, we should fix all the related problems.

Thanks,
Lai

> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Lai
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [PATCH] rcu/rt_mutex: eliminate a kind of deadlock for rcu read site
>>>
>>> Current rtmutex's lock->wait_lock doesn't disables softirq nor irq, it will
>>> cause rcu read site deadlock when rcu overlaps with any
>>> softirq-context/irq-context lock.
>>>
>>> @L is a spinlock of softirq or irq context.
>>>
>>> CPU1                                    cpu2(rcu boost)
>>> rcu_read_lock()                         rt_mutext_lock()
>>> <preemption and reschedule back>          raw_spin_lock(lock->wait_lock)
>>> spin_lock_XX(L)                           <interrupt and doing softirq or
>>> irq>
>>> rcu_read_unlock()                         do_softirq()
>>>   rcu_read_unlock_special()
>>>     rt_mutext_unlock()
>>>       raw_spin_lock(lock->wait_lock)        spin_lock_XX(L)  **DEADLOCK**
>>>
>>> This patch fixes this kind of deadlock by removing rt_mutext_unlock() from
>>> rcu_read_unlock(), new rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock() is called instead.
>>> Thus rtmutex's lock->wait_lock will not be called from rcu_read_unlock().
>>>
>>> This patch does not eliminate all kinds of rcu-read-site deadlock,
>>> if @L is a scheduler lock, it will be deadlock, we should apply Paul's rule
>>> in this case.(avoid overlapping or preempt_disable()).
>>>
>>> rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock() requires the @waiter is queued, so we
>>> can't directly call rt_mutex_lock(&mtx) in the rcu_boost thread,
>>> we split rt_mutex_lock(&mtx) into two steps just like pi-futex.
>>> This result a internal state in rcu_boost thread and cause
>>> rcu_boost thread a bit more complicated.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Lai
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/init_task.h b/include/linux/init_task.h
>>> index 5cd0f09..8830874 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/init_task.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/init_task.h
>>> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ extern struct group_info init_groups;
>>>
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>>  #define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()                                          \
>>> -       .rcu_boost_mutex = NULL,
>>> +       .rcu_boost_waiter = NULL,
>>>  #else
>>>  #define INIT_TASK_RCU_BOOST()
>>>  #endif
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> index e9995eb..1eca99f 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -1078,7 +1078,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>>>         struct rcu_node *rcu_blocked_node;
>>>  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> -       struct rt_mutex *rcu_boost_mutex;
>>> +       struct rt_mutex_waiter *rcu_boost_waiter;
>>>  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>
>>>  #if defined(CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS) || defined(CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT)
>>> @@ -1723,7 +1723,7 @@ static inline void rcu_copy_process(struct
>>> task_struct *p)
>>>         p->rcu_blocked_node = NULL;
>>>  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> -       p->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
>>> +       p->rcu_boost_waiter = NULL;
>>>  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>         INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->rcu_node_entry);
>>>  }
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>>> index 769e12e..d207ddd 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>>> +++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
>>> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
>>>  #define RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO 1
>>>
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> +#include "rtmutex_common.h"
>>>  #define RCU_BOOST_PRIO CONFIG_RCU_BOOST_PRIO
>>>  #else
>>>  #define RCU_BOOST_PRIO RCU_KTHREAD_PRIO
>>> @@ -340,7 +341,7 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>>>         unsigned long flags;
>>>         struct list_head *np;
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> -       struct rt_mutex *rbmp = NULL;
>>> +       struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter = NULL;
>>>  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>         struct rcu_node *rnp;
>>>         int special;
>>> @@ -397,10 +398,10 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>>                 if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
>>>                         rnp->boost_tasks = np;
>>> -               /* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_mutex with rcu_node lock
>>> held. */
>>> -               if (t->rcu_boost_mutex) {
>>> -                       rbmp = t->rcu_boost_mutex;
>>> -                       t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
>>> +               /* Snapshot/clear ->rcu_boost_waiter with rcu_node lock
>>> held. */
>>> +               if (t->rcu_boost_waiter) {
>>> +                       waiter = t->rcu_boost_waiter;
>>> +                       t->rcu_boost_waiter = NULL;
>>>                 }
>>>  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>
>>> @@ -426,8 +427,8 @@ void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>>>
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>>                 /* Unboost if we were boosted. */
>>> -               if (rbmp)
>>> -                       rt_mutex_unlock(rbmp);
>>> +               if (waiter)
>>> +                       rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(t, waiter);
>>>  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>>
>>>                 /*
>>> @@ -1129,9 +1130,6 @@ void exit_rcu(void)
>>>  #endif /* #else #ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU */
>>>
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> -
>>> -#include "rtmutex_common.h"
>>> -
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_TRACE
>>>
>>>  static void rcu_initiate_boost_trace(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>> @@ -1181,14 +1179,15 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>>  {
>>>         unsigned long flags;
>>>         struct rt_mutex mtx;
>>> +       struct rt_mutex_waiter rcu_boost_waiter;
>>>         struct task_struct *t;
>>>         struct list_head *tb;
>>> +       int ret;
>>>
>>>         if (rnp->exp_tasks == NULL && rnp->boost_tasks == NULL)
>>>                 return 0;  /* Nothing left to boost. */
>>>
>>>         raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> -
>>>         /*
>>>          * Recheck under the lock: all tasks in need of boosting
>>>          * might exit their RCU read-side critical sections on their own.
>>> @@ -1215,7 +1214,7 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>>
>>>         /*
>>>          * We boost task t by manufacturing an rt_mutex that appears to
>>> -        * be held by task t.  We leave a pointer to that rt_mutex where
>>> +        * be held by task t.  We leave a pointer to that rt_mutex_waiter
>>> where
>>>          * task t can find it, and task t will release the mutex when it
>>>          * exits its outermost RCU read-side critical section.  Then
>>>          * simply acquiring this artificial rt_mutex will boost task
>>> @@ -1230,11 +1229,30 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
>>>          * section.
>>>          */
>>>         t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
>>> +       get_task_struct(t);
>>>         rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
>>> -       t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
>>>         raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> -       rt_mutex_lock(&mtx);  /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
>>> -       rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx);  /* Keep lockdep happy. */
>>> +
>>> +       debug_rt_mutex_init_waiter(&rcu_boost_waiter);
>>> +       /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
>>> +       ret = rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(&mtx, &rcu_boost_waiter, current,
>>> 0);
>>> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret)) {
>>> +               put_task_struct(t);
>>> +               return 0; /* temporary stop boosting */
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> +       if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->exp_tasks ||
>>> +           &t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks) {
>>> +               t->rcu_boost_waiter = &rcu_boost_waiter;
>>> +               raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> +       } else {
>>> +               raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
>>> +               rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(t, &rcu_boost_waiter);
>>> +       }
>>> +
>>> +       put_task_struct(t);
>>> +       rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(&mtx, NULL, &rcu_boost_waiter, 0);
>>>
>>>         return ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL ||
>>>                ACCESS_ONCE(rnp->boost_tasks) != NULL;
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex.c b/kernel/rtmutex.c
>>> index 0dd6aec..2f3caee 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
>>> @@ -734,6 +734,43 @@ rt_mutex_slowunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock)
>>>         rt_mutex_adjust_prio(current);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> +/*
>>> + * rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock() - unlock in irq/bh/process context
>>> + *
>>> + * please revert the patch which introduces this function when
>>> + * rt_mutex's ->wait_lock is irq-off.
>>> + */
>>> +void rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(struct task_struct *owner,
>>> +                                struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter)
>>> +{
>>> +       unsigned long flags;
>>> +       struct rt_mutex *lock = waiter->lock;
>>> +
>>> +       /*
>>> +        * The correction of the following code is based on
>>> +        * 1) current lock is owned by @owner
>>> +        * 2) only one task(@waiter->task) is waiting on the @lock
>>> +        * 3) the @waiter has been queued and keeps been queued
>>> +        */
>>> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rt_mutex_owner(lock) != owner))
>>> +               return; /* 1) */
>>> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock) != waiter))
>>> +               return; /* 2) & 3) */
>>> +       if (WARN_ON_ONCE(plist_node_empty(&waiter->pi_list_entry)))
>>> +               return; /* 2) & 3) */
>>> +
>>> +       raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
>>> +       plist_del(&waiter->pi_list_entry, &owner->pi_waiters);
>>> +       lock->owner = NULL;
>>> +       raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&owner->pi_lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> +       wake_up_process(waiter->task);
>>> +       /* Undo pi boosting if necessary: */
>>> +       rt_mutex_adjust_prio(owner);
>>> +}
>>> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>> +
>>>  /*
>>>   * debug aware fast / slowpath lock,trylock,unlock
>>>   *
>>> diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex_common.h b/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
>>> index 53a66c8..3cdbe82 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
>>> +++ b/kernel/rtmutex_common.h
>>> @@ -117,6 +117,11 @@ extern int rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(struct rt_mutex
>>> *lock,
>>>                                       struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter,
>>>                                       int detect_deadlock);
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>>> +void rt_mutex_rcu_deboost_unlock(struct task_struct *owner,
>>> +                                struct rt_mutex_waiter *waiter);
>>> +#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
>>> +
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES
>>>  # include "rtmutex-debug.h"
>>>  #else
>>>
> 
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/