From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753593Ab3GXOYc (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:24:32 -0400 Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk ([88.96.1.126]:45753 "EHLO shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752066Ab3GXOGk (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:06:40 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ben Hutchings To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, "Ingo Molnar" , "Peter Zijlstra" , "Jiri Olsa" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:02:45 +0100 Message-ID: X-Mailer: LinuxStableQueue (scripts by bwh) Subject: [76/85] perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 192.168.4.101 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ben@decadent.org.uk X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shadbolt.decadent.org.uk); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 3.2.49-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Peter Zijlstra commit 058ebd0eba3aff16b144eabf4510ed9510e1416e upstream. Jiri managed to trigger this warning: [] ====================================================== [] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [] 3.10.0+ #228 Tainted: G W [] ------------------------------------------------------- [] p/6613 is trying to acquire lock: [] (rcu_node_0){..-...}, at: [] rcu_read_unlock_special+0xa7/0x250 [] [] but task is already holding lock: [] (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [] perf_lock_task_context+0xd9/0x2c0 [] [] which lock already depends on the new lock. [] [] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [] [] -> #4 (&ctx->lock){-.-...}: [] -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}: [] -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}: [] -> #1 (&rnp->nocb_gp_wq[1]){......}: [] -> #0 (rcu_node_0){..-...}: Paul was quick to explain that due to preemptible RCU we cannot call rcu_read_unlock() while holding scheduler (or nested) locks when part of the read side critical section was preemptible. Therefore solve it by making the entire RCU read side non-preemptible. Also pull out the retry from under the non-preempt to play nice with RT. Reported-by: Jiri Olsa Helped-out-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings --- kernel/events/core.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/kernel/events/core.c +++ b/kernel/events/core.c @@ -714,8 +714,18 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc { struct perf_event_context *ctx; - rcu_read_lock(); retry: + /* + * One of the few rules of preemptible RCU is that one cannot do + * rcu_read_unlock() while holding a scheduler (or nested) lock when + * part of the read side critical section was preemptible -- see + * rcu_read_unlock_special(). + * + * Since ctx->lock nests under rq->lock we must ensure the entire read + * side critical section is non-preemptible. + */ + preempt_disable(); + rcu_read_lock(); ctx = rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn]); if (ctx) { /* @@ -731,6 +741,8 @@ retry: raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, *flags); if (ctx != rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn])) { raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, *flags); + rcu_read_unlock(); + preempt_enable(); goto retry; } @@ -740,6 +752,7 @@ retry: } } rcu_read_unlock(); + preempt_enable(); return ctx; }