Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZKIsoMOT71uwCIZX@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <CAHk-=wg1_8L+e09_RuX=Z_49oLn8=w82YzCk+kybS-ymSd_zbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230703-dupe-frying-79ae2ccf94eb@spud>
In-Reply-To: <20230703-dupe-frying-79ae2ccf94eb@spud>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2023 10:07:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wg+jqA6nt36TxAfoqWskRAzhVfzBejcK6PNYXC+QcwyiA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mm] 408579cd62: WARNING:suspicious_RCU_usage
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     lkp <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        lkp@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 10:00, Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely sure if it is related, as stuff in the guts of mm like
> this is beyond me, but I've been seeing similar warnings on RISC-V.

No, that RISC-V warning is also about bad RCU usage, but that's a
different thing.

>         RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
>         rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
>         1 lock held by swapper/1/0:
>          #0: ffffffff8169ceb0 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: rcu_lock_acquire+0x0/0x32
>
>         stack backtrace:
>         CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 6.4.0-10173-ga901a3568fd2 #1
>         Hardware name: riscv-virtio,qemu (DT)
>         Call Trace:
>         [<ffffffff80006a20>] show_stack+0x2c/0x38
>         [<ffffffff80af3ee0>] dump_stack_lvl+0x5e/0x80
>         [<ffffffff80af3f16>] dump_stack+0x14/0x1c
>         [<ffffffff80083ff0>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x19e/0x232
>         [<ffffffff80ad4802>] mtree_load+0x18a/0x3b6
>         [<ffffffff80091632>] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x2c/0x82
>         [<ffffffff80094722>] enable_percpu_irq+0x36/0x9e
>         [<ffffffff800087d4>] riscv_ipi_enable+0x32/0x4e
>         [<ffffffff80008692>] smp_callin+0x24/0x66

This is also triggering on the maple tree sanity checks, but it' sa
different maple tree, and a different code sequence.

And a different case of suspicious RCU usage - not a lack of locking,
but simply using RCU before marking the CPU online.

I suspect the riscv_ipi_enable() in the RISC-V version of smp_callin()
needs to be moved down to below the

        set_cpu_online(curr_cpuid, 1);

or was there some reason why it needed to be done quite _that_ early
in commit 832f15f42646 ("RISC-V: Treat IPIs as normal Linux IRQs")?

Added guilty parties to the cc.

               Linus