From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2444BC5B579 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:15:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF82F2064A for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 08:15:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726549AbfF1IPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 04:15:17 -0400 Received: from lgeamrelo11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:56072 "EHLO lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726408AbfF1IPR (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 04:15:17 -0400 Received: from unknown (HELO lgemrelse6q.lge.com) (156.147.1.121) by 156.147.23.51 with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2019 17:15:14 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.121 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Received: from unknown (HELO X58A-UD3R) (10.177.222.33) by 156.147.1.121 with ESMTP; 28 Jun 2019 17:15:14 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:14:32 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Scott Wood , Joel Fernandes , Steven Rostedt , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , rcu , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Josh Triplett , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan , kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs Message-ID: <20190628081432.GA22890@X58A-UD3R> References: <20190627153031.GA249127@google.com> <20190627155506.GU26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190627173831.GW26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190627181638.GA209455@google.com> <20190627184107.GA26519@linux.ibm.com> <13761fee4b71cc004ad0d6709875ce917ff28fce.camel@redhat.com> <20190627203612.GD26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190628073138.GB13650@X58A-UD3R> <20190628074350.GA11214@X58A-UD3R> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190628074350.GA11214@X58A-UD3R> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:43:50PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 04:31:38PM +0900, Byungchul Park 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: > > > > > 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? > > > > +cc kernel-team@lge.com > (I'm sorry for more noise on the thread.) > > > Hello, > > > > Isn't the following scenario possible? > > > > The original code > > ----------------- > > rcu_read_lock(); > > ... > > /* Experdite */ > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true); > > ... > > __rcu_read_unlock(); > > if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s))) > > rcu_read_unlock_special(t); > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false); > > rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags); > > barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */ > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; > > > > The reordered code by machine > > ----------------------------- > > rcu_read_lock(); > > ... > > /* Experdite */ > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true); > > ... > > __rcu_read_unlock(); > > if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s))) > > rcu_read_unlock_special(t); > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; <--- LOOK AT THIS!!! > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false); > > rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags); > > barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */ > > > > An interrupt happens > > -------------------- > > rcu_read_lock(); > > ... > > /* Experdite */ > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, true); > > ... > > __rcu_read_unlock(); > > if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s))) > > rcu_read_unlock_special(t); > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; <--- LOOK AT THIS!!! > > <--- Handle an (any) irq > > rcu_read_lock(); > > /* This call should be skipped */ > > rcu_read_unlock_special(t); > > WRITE_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint, false); > > rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore(t, flags); > > barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */ > > > > We don't have to handle the special thing twice like this which is one > > reason to cause the problem even though another problem is of course to > > call ttwu w/o being aware it's within a context holding pi lock. > > > > Apart from the discussion about how to avoid ttwu in an improper > > condition, I think the following is necessary. I may have something > > missing. It would be appreciated if you let me know in case I'm wrong. > > > > Anyway, logically I think we should prevent reordering between > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting and t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.exp_hint not > > only by compiler but also by machine like the below. > > > > Do I miss something? > > > > Thanks, > > Byungchul > > > > ---8<--- > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > index 3c8444e..9b137f1 100644 > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h > > @@ -412,7 +412,13 @@ void __rcu_read_unlock(void) > > barrier(); /* assign before ->rcu_read_unlock_special load */ > > if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special.s))) > > rcu_read_unlock_special(t); > > - barrier(); /* ->rcu_read_unlock_special load before assign */ > > + /* > > + * Prevent reordering between clearing > > + * t->rcu_reak_unlock_special in > > + * rcu_read_unlock_special() and the following > > + * assignment to t->rcu_read_lock_nesting. > > + */ > > + smp_wmb(); Ah. But the problem is this makes rcu_read_unlock() heavier, which is too bad. Need to consider something else. But I'm still curious about if the scenario I told you is correct? > > t->rcu_read_lock_nesting = 0; > > } > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) { > > > >