| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110718152938.GC2312@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:29:38 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ed Tomlinson <edt@....ca>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:29:44AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-16 at 15:42 -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > [39066.195274] -> #2 (rcu_node_level_0){..-.-.}:
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff8108b805>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x140
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff815780fb>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff810ba7bf>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x19f/0x2d0
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff8103ffc8>] cpuacct_charge+0xc8/0xe0
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff81040ee5>] update_curr+0x1a5/0x210
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff81043f8a>] enqueue_task_fair+0x7a/0x650
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff81035369>] enqueue_task+0x79/0x90
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff810353ad>] activate_task+0x2d/0x40
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff81036921>] ttwu_activate+0x21/0x50
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff810424cc>] T.2447+0x3c/0x60
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff81042534>] sched_ttwu_pending+0x44/0x60
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff8104255e>] scheduler_ipi+0xe/0x10
> > [39066.195274] [<ffffffff8101e6aa>] smp_reschedule_interrupt+0x2a/0x30
>
> To go on top of my other patch
>
>
> ---
> Subject: sched: Add irq_{enter,exit}() to scheduler_ipi()
>
> Ensure scheduler_ipi() calls irq_{enter,exit} when it does some actual
> work. Traditionally we never did any actual work from the resched IPI
> and all magic happened in the return from interrupt path.
>
> Now that we do do some work, we need to ensure irq_{enter,exit} are
> called so that we don't confuse things.
>
> This affects things like timekeeping, NO_HZ and RCU, basically
> everything with a hook in irq_enter/exit.
>
> Explicit examples of things going wrong are:
>
> sched_clock_cpu() -- has a callback when leaving NO_HZ state to take
> a new reading from GTOD and TSC. Without this
> callback, time is stuck in the past.
>
> RCU -- needs in_irq() to work in order to avoid some nasty deadlocks
Cool -- avoids the extra overhead in the nothing-special-to-do case,
but gets the needed protection otherwise.
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 8fb4245..eb9cbe7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2544,13 +2544,9 @@ static int ttwu_remote(struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags)
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> -static void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
> +static void sched_ttwu_do_pending(struct task_struct *list)
> {
> struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> - struct task_struct *list = xchg(&rq->wake_list, NULL);
> -
> - if (!list)
> - return;
>
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>
> @@ -2563,9 +2559,41 @@ static void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> }
>
> +static void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
> +{
> + struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> + struct task_struct *list = xchg(&rq->wake_list, NULL);
> +
> + if (!list)
> + return;
> +
> + sched_ttwu_do_pending(list);
> +}
> +
> void scheduler_ipi(void)
> {
> - sched_ttwu_pending();
> + struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> + struct task_struct *list = xchg(&rq->wake_list, NULL);
> +
> + if (!list)
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * Not all reschedule IPI handlers call irq_enter/irq_exit, since
> + * traditionally all their work was done from the interrupt return
> + * path. Now that we actually do some work, we need to make sure
> + * we do call them.
> + *
> + * Some archs already do call them, luckily irq_enter/exit nest
> + * properly.
> + *
> + * Arguably we should visit all archs and update all handlers,
> + * however a fair share of IPIs are still resched only so this would
> + * somewhat pessimize the simple resched case.
> + */
> + irq_enter();
> + sched_ttwu_do_pending(list);
> + irq_exit();
> }
>
> static void ttwu_queue_remote(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
>
> --
> 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/
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists