linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] lockdep: Move lock events under lockdep recursion protection

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100309083410.GD5768@kernel.dk>
Date:	Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:34:10 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] lockdep: Move lock events under lockdep recursion
	protection

On Wed, Mar 03 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> There are rcu locked read side areas in the path where we submit
> a trace event. And these rcu_read_(un)lock() trigger lock events,
> which create recursive events.
> 
> One pair in do_perf_sw_event:
> 
> __lock_acquire
>       |
>       |--96.11%-- lock_acquire
>       |          |
>       |          |--27.21%-- do_perf_sw_event
>       |          |          perf_tp_event
>       |          |          |
>       |          |          |--49.62%-- ftrace_profile_lock_release
>       |          |          |          lock_release
>       |          |          |          |
>       |          |          |          |--33.85%-- _raw_spin_unlock
> 
> Another pair in perf_output_begin/end:
> 
> __lock_acquire
>       |--23.40%-- perf_output_begin
>       |          |          __perf_event_overflow
>       |          |          perf_swevent_overflow
>       |          |          perf_swevent_add
>       |          |          perf_swevent_ctx_event
>       |          |          do_perf_sw_event
>       |          |          perf_tp_event
>       |          |          |
>       |          |          |--55.37%-- ftrace_profile_lock_acquire
>       |          |          |          lock_acquire
>       |          |          |          |
>       |          |          |          |--37.31%-- _raw_spin_lock
> 
> The problem is not that much the trace recursion itself, as we have a
> recursion protection already (though it's always wasteful to recurse).
> But the trace events are outside the lockdep recursion protection, then
> each lockdep event triggers a lock trace, which will trigger two
> other lockdep events. Here the recursive lock trace event won't
> be taken because of the trace recursion, so the recursion stops there
> but lockdep will still analyse these new events:
> 
> To sum up, for each lockdep events we have:
> 
> 	lock_*()
> 	     |
>              trace lock_acquire
>                   |
>                   ----- rcu_read_lock()
>                   |          |
>                   |          lock_acquire()
>                   |          |
>                   |          trace_lock_acquire() (stopped)
>                   |          |
> 		  |          lockdep analyze
>                   |
>                   ----- rcu_read_unlock()
>                              |
>                              lock_release
>                              |
>                              trace_lock_release() (stopped)
>                              |
>                              lockdep analyze
> 
> And you can repeat the above two times as we have two rcu read side
> sections when we submit an event.
> 
> This is fixed in this patch by moving the lock trace event under
> the lockdep recursion protection.

I went to try this on 2.6.34-rc1 to see how much it would improve things
here. With 2.6.34-rc1, a

$ time sudo perf lock record ls /dev/shm

essentially hangs the box, it ends up crashing hard (not just live
locked like before). With the patch in place, it does eventually finish:

real    0m21.301s
user    0m0.030s
sys     0m21.040s

The directory is empty.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/