mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Austin Schuh <austin@peloton-tech.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@gmail.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: Filesystem lockup with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:24:52 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406271249510.5170@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANGgnMa+qtgJ3wwg_h5Rynw5vEvZpQZ6PvaUfXNQ8+Y3Yu5U0g@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 26 Jun 2014, Austin Schuh wrote:
> If I'm reading the rt patch correctly, wq_worker_sleeping was moved
> out of __schedule to sched_submit_work.  It looks like that changes
> the conditions under which wq_worker_sleeping is called.  It used to
> be called whenever a task was going to sleep (I think).  It looks like
> it is called now if the task is going to sleep, and if the task isn't
> blocked on a PI mutex (I think).
> 
> If I try the following experiment
> 
>  static inline void sched_submit_work(struct task_struct *tsk)
>  {
> +   if (tsk->state && tsk->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER) {
> +     wq_worker_sleeping(tsk);
> +     return;
> +   }
> 
> and then remove the call later in the function, I am able to pass my test.
> 
> Unfortunately, I then get a recursive pool spinlock BUG_ON after a
> while (as I would expect), and it all blows up.

Well, that's why the check for !pi_blocked_on is there.
 
> I'm not sure where to go from there.  Any changes to the workpool to
> try to fix that will be hard, or could affect latency significantly.

Completely untested patch below.

Thanks,

	tglx

--------------------->
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 8749d20..621329a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2651,9 +2651,8 @@ need_resched:
 
 static inline void sched_submit_work(struct task_struct *tsk)
 {
-	if (!tsk->state || tsk_is_pi_blocked(tsk))
+	if (!tsk->state)
 		return;
-
 	/*
 	 * If a worker went to sleep, notify and ask workqueue whether
 	 * it wants to wake up a task to maintain concurrency.
@@ -2661,6 +2660,10 @@ static inline void sched_submit_work(struct task_struct *tsk)
 	if (tsk->flags & PF_WQ_WORKER)
 		wq_worker_sleeping(tsk);
 
+
+	if (tsk_is_pi_blocked(tsk))
+		return;
+
 	/*
 	 * If we are going to sleep and we have plugged IO queued,
 	 * make sure to submit it to avoid deadlocks.
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index be0ef50..0ca9d97 100644
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -126,6 +126,8 @@ enum {
  *    cpu or grabbing pool->lock is enough for read access.  If
  *    POOL_DISASSOCIATED is set, it's identical to L.
  *
+ *    On RT we need the extra protection via rt_lock_idle_list()
+ *
  * MG: pool->manager_mutex and pool->lock protected.  Writes require both
  *     locks.  Reads can happen under either lock.
  *
@@ -409,6 +411,31 @@ static void copy_workqueue_attrs(struct workqueue_attrs *to,
 		if (({ assert_rcu_or_wq_mutex(wq); false; })) { }	\
 		else
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT_BASE
+static inline void rt_lock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool)
+{
+	preempt_disable();
+}
+static inline void rt_unlock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool)
+{
+	preempt_enable();
+}
+static inline void sched_lock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool) { }
+static inline void sched_unlock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool) { }
+#else
+static inline void rt_lock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool) { }
+static inline void rt_unlock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool) { }
+static inline void sched_lock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool)
+{
+	spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
+}
+static inline void sched_unlock_idle_list(struct worker_pool *pool)
+{
+	spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
+}
+#endif
+
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_WORK
 
 static struct debug_obj_descr work_debug_descr;
@@ -801,10 +828,16 @@ static struct worker *first_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
  */
 static void wake_up_worker(struct worker_pool *pool)
 {
-	struct worker *worker = first_worker(pool);
+	struct worker *worker;
+
+	rt_lock_idle_list(pool);
+
+	worker = first_worker(pool);
 
 	if (likely(worker))
 		wake_up_process(worker->task);
+
+	rt_unlock_idle_list(pool);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -832,7 +865,7 @@ void wq_worker_running(struct task_struct *task)
  */
 void wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task)
 {
-	struct worker *next, *worker = kthread_data(task);
+	struct worker *worker = kthread_data(task);
 	struct worker_pool *pool;
 
 	/*
@@ -849,25 +882,18 @@ void wq_worker_sleeping(struct task_struct *task)
 		return;
 
 	worker->sleeping = 1;
-	spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
+
 	/*
 	 * The counterpart of the following dec_and_test, implied mb,
 	 * worklist not empty test sequence is in insert_work().
 	 * Please read comment there.
-	 *
-	 * NOT_RUNNING is clear.  This means that we're bound to and
-	 * running on the local cpu w/ rq lock held and preemption
-	 * disabled, which in turn means that none else could be
-	 * manipulating idle_list, so dereferencing idle_list without pool
-	 * lock is safe.
 	 */
 	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&pool->nr_running) &&
 	    !list_empty(&pool->worklist)) {
-		next = first_worker(pool);
-		if (next)
-			wake_up_process(next->task);
+		sched_lock_idle_list(pool);
+		wake_up_worker(pool);
+		sched_unlock_idle_list(pool);
 	}
-	spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -1571,7 +1597,9 @@ static void worker_enter_idle(struct worker *worker)
 	worker->last_active = jiffies;
 
 	/* idle_list is LIFO */
+	rt_lock_idle_list(pool);
 	list_add(&worker->entry, &pool->idle_list);
+	rt_unlock_idle_list(pool);
 
 	if (too_many_workers(pool) && !timer_pending(&pool->idle_timer))
 		mod_timer(&pool->idle_timer, jiffies + IDLE_WORKER_TIMEOUT);
@@ -1604,7 +1632,9 @@ static void worker_leave_idle(struct worker *worker)
 		return;
 	worker_clr_flags(worker, WORKER_IDLE);
 	pool->nr_idle--;
+	rt_lock_idle_list(pool);
 	list_del_init(&worker->entry);
+	rt_unlock_idle_list(pool);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -1849,7 +1879,9 @@ static void destroy_worker(struct worker *worker)
 	 */
 	get_task_struct(worker->task);
 
+	rt_lock_idle_list(pool);
 	list_del_init(&worker->entry);
+	rt_unlock_idle_list(pool);
 	worker->flags |= WORKER_DIE;
 
 	idr_remove(&pool->worker_idr, worker->id);

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-06-27 14:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-14  2:29 Austin Schuh
2014-05-21  6:23 ` Austin Schuh
2014-05-21  7:33   ` Richard Weinberger
2014-06-26 19:50     ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-26 22:35       ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-06-27  0:07         ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-27  3:22           ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 12:57           ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 14:01             ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-27 17:34               ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 17:54                 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-27 18:07                   ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 18:19                     ` Steven Rostedt
2014-06-27 19:11                       ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-28  1:18                       ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-28  3:32                         ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-28  6:20                           ` Austin Schuh
2014-06-28  7:11                             ` Mike Galbraith
2014-06-27 14:24           ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2014-06-28  4:51             ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-01  0:12             ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-01  0:53               ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-05 20:26                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-07-06  4:55                   ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-01  3:01             ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-01 19:32               ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-03 23:08                 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-04  4:42                   ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-21 19:30 John Blackwood
2014-05-21 21:59 ` Austin Schuh
2014-07-05 20:36 ` Thomas Gleixner

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=alpine.DEB.2.10.1406271249510.5170@nanos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=austin@peloton-tech.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=richard.weinberger@gmail.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
    /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®