Received: by 2002:a25:f815:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id u21csp1754935ybd; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:47:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy2vv+glzjDrDsHFalKpYcUAntpMCCHHv0I670vYFCKeE/f1I9ymNJYU+MYWAQ5NhhMsiHi X-Received: by 2002:a63:c508:: with SMTP id f8mr2520004pgd.48.1561621668748; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:47:48 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1561621668; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=w3V+xhlXhugpKUQWwvcO3FZtU/nydg5MxRwJhF7E3vdtFUqeNALwWaUvXPyHP74b51 +nOaupjPGGZ1CKN50LfcREr55eS3cXhZPsZyx77s4ujpYk/mCVYLAMJmwyHFqqCdNkhL FkyIrNhfjpVI9jIAbeyV/Cn93pNdUoL1krnuSECaIpa+TuwgclGX1oiqocK1WMQm3dmm qfOIC92/4Q95cBkQ/RjGIRiXg9q3tf+bkc5mFrgxseEFabQCDdm533J0AIFGZwjcKrmB yMKCfFFiceuwnoErUEvlMV2sF3/avox1C0OD5RU4t3M+85U0nW00PZcDGHYrtwCpHNaE uSTQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=1RnaMVkQ3lB+8P4INICHyCDTQTBbnVHYH/25t3Q5qHU=; b=055mm13fa04A77RZrRBfE8/XxymSPeqYWv83qllcx5Tst2mCF2zUPjqZVHGe9vfSJ0 EHqMbk/xtWlJ6qg2k6jBM8HOgUtSnL+i6lxe/msxRW2bEEoWnEt8zfaxnBxaiescbkS5 dgHS2bFUvCQLfBDVA4v8CtOgV61nCf5x98Wyb7EU3MNqU162lCNv30Zren9tQecS2ODd 4DifxQ2trPbaos/9KMpzOv73tpyERYHrFowVsiGaJ9zoaotY5SiHKzOk4CrDRYUkgg8M KENCeqwWNTcaz1f97dAohf/8G/wtFT6wGGSYykASVIwOvYdVKG2jucbb9bpHJOwT1TYl PaFg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id s193si1354370pgs.232.2019.06.27.00.47.32; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:47:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726520AbfF0HrN (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:47:13 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:52652 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726375AbfF0HrL (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 03:47:11 -0400 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1hgP7Z-0004VY-F2; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:47:05 +0200 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:47:05 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Josh Triplett , Steven Rostedt , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , Joel Fernandes Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs Message-ID: <20190627074705.utzk757w4jgpiqtn@linutronix.de> References: <20190626135447.y24mvfuid5fifwjc@linutronix.de> <20190626162558.GY26519@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190626162558.GY26519@linux.ibm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019-06-26 09:25:58 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:54:47PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > one of my boxes boots with "threadirqs" and since commit 05f415715ce45 > > ("rcu: Speed up expedited GPs when interrupting RCU reader") I run > > reliably into the following deadlock: > > > > | ============================================ > > | WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > > | 5.2.0-rc6 #279 Not tainted > > | -------------------------------------------- > > | (cron)/2109 is trying to acquire lock: > > | 0000000088464daa (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}, at: try_to_wake_up+0x37/0x700 > > | > > | but task is already holding lock: > > | 0000000088464daa (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}, at: try_to_wake_up+0x37/0x700 > > | > > | other info that might help us debug this: > > | Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > | > > | CPU0 > > | ---- > > | lock(&p->pi_lock); > > | lock(&p->pi_lock); > > | > > | *** DEADLOCK *** > > | > > | May be due to missing lock nesting notation > > | > > | 4 locks held by (cron)/2109: > > | #0: 00000000c0ae63d9 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key){++++}, at: iterate_dir+0x3d/0x170 > > | #1: 0000000088464daa (&p->pi_lock){-.-.}, at: try_to_wake_up+0x37/0x700 > > | #2: 00000000f62f14cf (&rq->lock){-.-.}, at: try_to_wake_up+0x209/0x700 > > | #3: 000000000d32568e (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: cpuacct_charge+0x37/0x1e0 > > | > > | stack backtrace: > > | CPU: 3 PID: 2109 Comm: (cron) Not tainted 5.2.0-rc6 #279 > > | Call Trace: > > | > > | dump_stack+0x67/0x90 > > | __lock_acquire.cold.63+0x142/0x23a > > | lock_acquire+0x9b/0x1a0 > > | ? try_to_wake_up+0x37/0x700 > > | _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x33/0x50 > > | ? try_to_wake_up+0x37/0x700 > > | try_to_wake_up+0x37/0x700 > > wake up ksoftirqd > > > > | rcu_read_unlock_special+0x61/0xa0 > > | __rcu_read_unlock+0x58/0x60 > > | cpuacct_charge+0xeb/0x1e0 > > | update_curr+0x15d/0x350 > > | enqueue_entity+0x115/0x7e0 > > | enqueue_task_fair+0x78/0x450 > > | activate_task+0x41/0x90 > > | ttwu_do_activate+0x49/0x80 > > | try_to_wake_up+0x23f/0x700 > > > > wake up ksoftirqd > > > > | irq_exit+0xba/0xc0 > > | smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xb2/0x2a0 > > | apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 > > | > > > > based one the commit it seems the problem was always there but now the > > mix of raise_softirq_irqoff() and set_tsk_need_resched() seems to hit > > the window quite reliably. Replacing it with > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > index 1102765f91fd1..baab36f4d0f45 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > @@ -627,14 +627,7 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t) > > if (preempt_bh_were_disabled || irqs_were_disabled) { > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false); > > /* Need to defer quiescent state until everything is enabled. */ > > - if (irqs_were_disabled) { > > - /* Enabling irqs does not reschedule, so... */ > > - raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ); > > - } else { > > - /* Enabling BH or preempt does reschedule, so... */ > > - set_tsk_need_resched(current); > > - set_preempt_need_resched(); > > - } > > + raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ); > > local_irq_restore(flags); > > return; > > } > > > > will make it go away. > > Color me confused. Neither set_tsk_need_resched() nor > set_preempt_need_resched() acquire locks or do wakeups. This is correct. > Yet raise_softirq_irqoff() can do a wakeup if not called > from hardirq/softirq/NMI context, so I would instead expect > raise_softirq_irqoff() to be the source of troubles when > interrupts are threaded. also correct and it is. > What am I missing here? Timing. If raise_softirq_irqoff() is always invoked then we end up in a state where the thread either isn't invoked or is already running and the wake up is skipped early (because ->state == TASK_RUNNING or something). Please be aware that timing is crucial here to trigger it. I have a test-case running as an init-script which triggers the bug. Running the tast-case later manually does not trigger it. > > Any suggestions? > > Does something like IRQ work help? Please see -rcu commit 0864f057b050 > ("rcu: Use irq_work to get scheduler's attention in clean context") > for one way of doing this. Perhaps in combination with -rcu commit > a69987a515c8 ("rcu: Simplify rcu_read_unlock_special() deferred wakeups"). I don't think this will help. The problem is that irq_exit() invokes wake_up_process(ksoftirqd). This function will invoke itself on the same task as part of rcu_unlock() / rcu_read_unlock_special(). I don't think this changes here. > Thanx, Paul Sebastian