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 19:45:45 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        rcu <rcu@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <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: <20190628174545.pwgwi3wxl2eapkvm@linutronix.de>
References: <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>
 <20190628164008.GB240964@google.com>
 <20190628164559.GC240964@google.com>
 <20190628173011.GX26519@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <20190628173011.GX26519@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-06-28 10:30:11 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I believe the .blocked field remains set even though we are not any more in a
> > reader section because of deferred processing of the blocked lists that you
> > mentioned yesterday.
> 
> That can indeed happen.  However, in current -rcu, that would mean
> that .deferred_qs is also set, which (if in_irq()) would prevent
> the raise_softirq_irqsoff() from being invoked.  Which was why I was
> asking the questions about whether in_irq() returns true within threaded
> interrupts yesterday.  If it does, I need to find if there is some way
> of determining whether rcu_read_unlock_special() is being called from
> a threaded interrupt in order to suppress the call to raise_softirq()
> in that case.

Please not that:
| void irq_exit(void)
| {
|…
in_irq() returns true
|         preempt_count_sub(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
in_irq() returns false
|         if (!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending())
|                 invoke_softirq();

-> invoke_softirq() does
|        if (!force_irqthreads) {
|                 __do_softirq();
|         } else {
|                 wakeup_softirqd();
|         }

so for `force_irqthreads' rcu_read_unlock_special() within
wakeup_softirqd() will see false.

> 							Thanx, Paul

Sebastian