[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1328125319-5205-21-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:41:39 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
dhowells@...hat.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, patches@...aro.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 21/41] rcu: Inform RCU of irq_exit() activity
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
This is a port to TINY_RCU of Peter Zijlstra's commit #ec433f0c5
The rcu_read_unlock_special() function relies on in_irq() to exclude
scheduler activity from interrupt level. This fails because exit_irq()
can invoke the scheduler after clearing the preempt_count() bits that
in_irq() uses to determine that it is at interrupt level. This situation
can result in failures as follows:
$task IRQ SoftIRQ
rcu_read_lock()
/* do stuff */
<preempt> |= UNLOCK_BLOCKED
rcu_read_unlock()
--t->rcu_read_lock_nesting
irq_enter();
/* do stuff, don't use RCU */
irq_exit();
sub_preempt_count(IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET);
invoke_softirq()
ttwu();
spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock)
rcu_read_lock();
/* do stuff */
rcu_read_unlock();
rcu_read_unlock_special()
rcu_report_exp_rnp()
ttwu()
spin_lock_irq(&pi->lock) /* deadlock */
rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
This can be triggered 'easily' because invoke_softirq() immediately does
a ttwu() of ksoftirqd/# instead of doing the in-place softirq stuff first,
but even without that the above happens.
Cure this by also excluding softirqs from the rcu_read_unlock_special()
handler and ensuring the force_irqthreads ksoftirqd/# wakeup is done
from full softirq context.
[ Alternatively, delaying the ->rcu_read_lock_nesting decrement
until after the special handling would make the thing more robust
in the face of interrupts as well. And there is a separate patch
for that. ]
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h
index 3f6c07e..9d7d985 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutiny_plugin.h
@@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ static noinline void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
rcu_preempt_cpu_qs();
/* Hardware IRQ handlers cannot block. */
- if (in_irq()) {
+ if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq()) {
local_irq_restore(flags);
return;
}
--
1.7.8
--
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