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;
Message-ID: <ea495c55c1aea45cc1b0e9ab6779354ba2a9983a.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs
From:   Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     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>
Date:   Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:01:36 -0500
In-Reply-To: <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>
         <20190628141522.GF3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Organization: Red Hat
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5 (3.30.5-1.fc29) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2019-06-28 at 16:15 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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:
> > > > 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().

resched_cpu() will not send an IPI to the current CPU[1].  Plus, the RCU
code needs to set need_resched even in cases where it doesn't need to send
the IPI.  And worst of all, resched_cpu() takes the rq lock which is the
deadlock scenario we're trying to avoid.

-Scott

[1] Which makes me nervous about latency if there are any wakeups with irqs
disabled, without a preempt_enable() after irqs are enabled again, and not
inside an interrupt.