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:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:15:22 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        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: <20190628141522.GF3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190627142436.GD215968@google.com>
 <20190627103455.01014276@gandalf.local.home>
 <20190627153031.GA249127@google.com>
 <20190627155506.GU26519@linux.ibm.com>
 <CAEXW_YSEN_OL3ftTLN=M-W70WSuCgHJqU-R9VhS=A3uVj_AL+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190627173831.GW26519@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190627181638.GA209455@google.com>
 <20190627184107.GA26519@linux.ibm.com>
 <13761fee4b71cc004ad0d6709875ce917ff28fce.camel@redhat.com>
 <20190627203612.GD26519@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190627203612.GD26519@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 01:36:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 03:17:27PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-06-27 at 11:41 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 02:16:38PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I think the fix should be to prevent the wake-up not based on whether we
> > > > are
> > > > in hard/soft-interrupt mode but that we are doing the rcu_read_unlock()
> > > > from
> > > > a scheduler path (if we can detect that)
> > > 
> > > Or just don't do the wakeup at all, if it comes to that.  I don't know
> > > of any way to determine whether rcu_read_unlock() is being called from
> > > the scheduler, but it has been some time since I asked Peter Zijlstra
> > > about that.
> > > 
> > > Of course, unconditionally refusing to do the wakeup might not be happy
> > > thing for NO_HZ_FULL kernels that don't implement IRQ work.
> > 
> > Couldn't smp_send_reschedule() be used instead?
> 
> Good point.  If current -rcu doesn't fix things for Sebastian's case,
> that would be well worth looking at.  But there must be some reason
> why Peter Zijlstra didn't suggest it when he instead suggested using
> the IRQ work approach.
> 
> Peter, thoughts?

I've not exactly kept up with the thread; but irq_work allows you to run
some actual code on the remote CPU which is often useful and it is only
a little more expensive than smp_send_reschedule().

Also, just smp_send_reschedule() doesn't really do anything without
first poking TIF_NEED_RESCHED (or other scheduler state) and if you want
to do both, there's other helpers you should use, like resched_cpu().