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;
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:55:06 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs
Message-ID: <20190627155506.GU26519@linux.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com
References: <20190626135447.y24mvfuid5fifwjc@linutronix.de>
 <20190626162558.GY26519@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190627142436.GD215968@google.com>
 <20190627103455.01014276@gandalf.local.home>
 <20190627153031.GA249127@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190627153031.GA249127@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:30:31AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:34:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:24:36 -0400
> > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > What am I missing here?  
> > > 
> > > This issue I think is
> > > 
> > > (in normal process context)
> > > spin_lock_irqsave(rq_lock); // which disables both preemption and interrupt
> > > 			   // but this was done in normal process context,
> > > 			   // not from IRQ handler
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > >           <---------- IPI comes in and sets exp_hint
> > 
> > How would an IPI come in here with interrupts disabled?
> > 
> > -- Steve
> 
> This is true, could it be rcu_read_unlock_special() got called for some
> *other* reason other than the IPI then?
> 
> Per Sebastian's stack trace of the recursive lock scenario, it is happening
> during cpu_acct_charge() which is called with the rq_lock held. 
> 
> The only other reasons I know off to call rcu_read_unlock_special() are if
> 1. the tick indicated that the CPU has to report a QS
> 2. an IPI in the middle of the reader section for expedited GPs
> 3. preemption in the middle of a preemptible RCU reader section

4. Some previous reader section was IPIed or preempted, but either
   interrupts, softirqs, or preemption was disabled across the
   rcu_read_unlock() of that previous reader section.

I -think- that this is what Sebastian is seeing.

							Thanx, Paul

> 1. and 2. are not possible because interrupts are disabled, that's why the
> wakeup_softirq even happened.
> 3. is not possible because we are holding rq_lock in the RCU reader section.
> 
> So I am at a bit of a loss how this can happen :-(
> 
> Spurious call to rcu_read_unlock_special() may be when it should not have
> been called?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> - Joel