From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:42:31 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1310751751.27864.74.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110715172416.GE2327@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 10:24 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> But the rcu_read_unlock() called from within the irq handler would
> take a second snapshot of ->special. It could then enter
> rcu_read_unlock_special().
You agree that an interrupt preempting the rcu_read_unlock() is causing
the issues correct? But it is also contained within rcu_read_unlock().
That is, we just don't want interrupts or softirqs from calling the
special function when it preempted rcu_read_unlock().
How about this patch? (again totally untested and not even compiled)
-- Steve
diff --git a/kernel/rcupdate.c b/kernel/rcupdate.c
index 7784bd2..0bdf0ea 100644
--- a/kernel/rcupdate.c
+++ b/kernel/rcupdate.c
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/hardirq.h>
+DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, in_rcu_read_unlock);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
static struct lock_class_key rcu_lock_key;
struct lockdep_map rcu_lock_map =
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
index 14dc7dd..a4adbb7 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
@@ -375,6 +375,8 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
}
}
+DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, in_rcu_read_unlock);
+
/*
* Tree-preemptible RCU implementation for rcu_read_unlock().
* Decrement ->rcu_read_lock_nesting. If the result is zero (outermost
@@ -386,12 +388,16 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
{
struct task_struct *t = current;
+ get_cpu_var(in_rcu_read_unlock)++;
barrier(); /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
barrier(); /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
+ __get_cpu_var(in_rcu_read_unlock) == 1 &&
unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
+ __get_cpu_var(in_rcu_read_unlock)--;
+ put_cpu_var(in_rcu_read_unlock);
#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-15 17:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-14 14:49 Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-14 16:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:16 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 19:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:38 ` Dave Jones
2011-07-14 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 16:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 17:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 19:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 11:05 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 11:35 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 11:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 18:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 12:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 13:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 14:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 15:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 16:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 16:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 21:48 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 22:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-16 19:42 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-17 0:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-17 1:56 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-17 14:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-18 15:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-18 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-18 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 16:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 17:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 17:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 17:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 17:42 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2011-07-15 18:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-07 16:22 Justin P. Mattock
2011-08-11 20:57 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-12-06 10:11 Richard Zidlicky
2009-10-10 23:09 John Kacur
2007-02-08 15:03 Pedro M. López
2006-10-16 14:05 alpha @ steudten Engineering
2006-10-16 14:32 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-16 15:42 ` Randy Dunlap
2006-10-16 15:46 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-19 6:02 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-19 6:30 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1310751751.27864.74.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=edt@aei.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®