| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:48:15 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: irq_work: WARNING: at kernel/irq_work.c:98 irq_work_needs_cpu+0x8a/0xb0()
On 03/08/2013 02:46 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 01:24:49PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 03/08/2013 11:44 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 12:48:06AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> While fuzzing with trinity inside a KVM tools guest it seemed to have hit the
>>>> new warning in kernel/irq_work.c:
>>>>
>>>> [ 486.527075] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>>> [ 486.527788] WARNING: at kernel/irq_work.c:98 irq_work_needs_cpu+0x8a/0xb0()
>>>> [ 486.528870] Modules linked in:
>>>> [ 486.529377] Pid: 0, comm: swapper/2 Tainted: G W 3.9.0-rc1-next-20130307-sasha-00047-g0a7d304-dirty #1037
>>>> [ 486.530165] Call Trace:
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff8110774c>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8c/0xc0
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff81107795>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff811eadda>] irq_work_needs_cpu+0x8a/0xb0
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff81174585>] tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick+0x95/0x2a0
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff811749d9>] __tick_nohz_idle_enter+0x189/0x1b0
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff81174ae1>] tick_nohz_idle_enter+0xa1/0xd0
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff8106e4f7>] cpu_idle+0x77/0x180
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff83d2e8ae>] ? setup_APIC_timer+0xc9/0xce
>>>> [ 486.530165] [<ffffffff83d2dea9>] start_secondary+0xe1/0xe8
>>>> [ 486.530165] ---[ end trace dd075f5cfc2c4f26 ]---
>>>>
>>>> Obviously this was happening when trinity tried to exercise the shutdown syscall.
>>>>
>>>> It was followed by RCU choking and causing a bunch of locked tasks, preventing
>>>> shutdown. I guess it's the result of whatever caused this warning above to
>>>> happen, but in-case it isn't, the relevant parts of the RCU hang are:
>>>>
>>>> [ 607.040283] INFO: task init:1 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>>> [ 607.042932] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>>> [ 607.047046] init D ffff8800ba308000 2736 1 0 0x00000000
>>>> [ 607.050498] ffff8800ba311b18 0000000000000002 0000000000000003 ffff8800ba308000
>>>> [ 607.055110] ffff8800ba310000 ffff8800ba310010 ffff8800ba311fd8 ffff8800ba310000
>>>> [ 607.058208] ffff8800ba310010 ffff8800ba311fd8 ffffffff8542c420 ffff8800ba308000
>>>> [ 607.060611] Call Trace:
>>>> [ 607.060847] [<ffffffff83d38c85>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x365/0x5d0
>>>> [ 607.061462] [<ffffffff83d3ad85>] schedule+0x55/0x60
>>>> [ 607.061948] [<ffffffff83d3b143>] schedule_preempt_disabled+0x13/0x20
>>>> [ 607.062590] [<ffffffff83d38cc5>] __mutex_lock_common+0x3a5/0x5d0
>>>> [ 607.063209] [<ffffffff811c2262>] ? rcu_cleanup_dead_cpu+0x52/0x250
>>>> [ 607.063840] [<ffffffff819e73b9>] ? free_cpumask_var+0x9/0x10
>>>> [ 607.064453] [<ffffffff811c2262>] ? rcu_cleanup_dead_cpu+0x52/0x250
>>>> [ 607.065035] [<ffffffff83d39020>] mutex_lock_nested+0x40/0x50
>>>> [ 607.065606] [<ffffffff811c2262>] rcu_cleanup_dead_cpu+0x52/0x250
>>>> [ 607.066230] [<ffffffff8117c2dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>>> [ 607.066810] [<ffffffff83d30f5e>] rcu_cpu_notify+0x1b4/0x1ef
>>>> [ 607.067375] [<ffffffff83d415ae>] notifier_call_chain+0xee/0x130
>>>> [ 607.067975] [<ffffffff8113cec9>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0x10
>>>> [ 607.068631] [<ffffffff8110b5ab>] __cpu_notify+0x1b/0x30
>>>> [ 607.069165] [<ffffffff8110b5d0>] cpu_notify_nofail+0x10/0x30
>>>> [ 607.069749] [<ffffffff83d22605>] _cpu_down+0x185/0x2e0
>>>> [ 607.070319] [<ffffffff8110bd38>] disable_nonboot_cpus+0x88/0x1b0
>>>> [ 607.070937] [<ffffffff81125766>] kernel_restart+0x16/0x60
>>>> [ 607.071487] [<ffffffff8112594c>] SYSC_reboot+0x18c/0x2a0
>>>> [ 607.072020] [<ffffffff811c17e3>] ? rcu_cleanup_after_idle+0x23/0xf0
>>>> [ 607.072635] [<ffffffff811c1914>] ? rcu_eqs_exit_common+0x64/0x280
>>>> [ 607.073251] [<ffffffff811fd815>] ? user_exit+0xc5/0x100
>>>> [ 607.073772] [<ffffffff8117c2dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>>> [ 607.074352] [<ffffffff810725f3>] ? syscall_trace_enter+0x23/0x290
>>>> [ 607.075054] [<ffffffff81125a69>] SyS_reboot+0x9/0x10
>>>> [ 607.075495] [<ffffffff83d45c10>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
>>>> [ 607.075967] 4 locks held by init/1:
>>>> [ 607.076439] #0: (reboot_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811258a6>] SYSC_reboot+0xe6/0x2a0
>>>> [ 607.077276] #1: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8110b602>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x12/0x20
>>>> [ 607.078288] #2: (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8110b6f7>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x27/0x60
>>>> [ 607.079260] #3: (rcu_preempt_state.onoff_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811c2262>] rcu_cleanup_dead_cpu+0x52/0x250
>>>>
>>>> [ 607.187177] rcu_preempt D ffff8800aa8884a8 5136 11 2 0x00000000
>>>> [ 607.187890] ffff8800ba391c08 0000000000000002 ffff8800ba391bb8 000000078117e00a
>>>> [ 607.188674] ffff8800ba390000 ffff8800ba390010 ffff8800ba391fd8 ffff8800ba390000
>>>> [ 607.189472] ffff8800ba390010 ffff8800ba391fd8 ffff8800ba308000 ffff8800ba388000
>>>> [ 607.190581] Call Trace:
>>>> [ 607.190849] [<ffffffff83d3ad85>] schedule+0x55/0x60
>>>> [ 607.191336] [<ffffffff83d381c6>] schedule_timeout+0x276/0x2c0
>>>> [ 607.191904] [<ffffffff81119e40>] ? lock_timer_base+0x70/0x70
>>>> [ 607.192460] [<ffffffff83d38229>] schedule_timeout_uninterruptible+0x19/0x20
>>>> [ 607.193132] [<ffffffff811c61d8>] rcu_gp_init+0x438/0x490
>>>> [ 607.193646] [<ffffffff8117c2dd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
>>>> [ 607.194216] [<ffffffff811c62ec>] rcu_gp_kthread+0xbc/0x2d0
>>>> [ 607.194760] [<ffffffff811c6230>] ? rcu_gp_init+0x490/0x490
>>>> [ 607.195298] [<ffffffff81136570>] ? wake_up_bit+0x40/0x40
>>>> [ 607.195823] [<ffffffff811c6230>] ? rcu_gp_init+0x490/0x490
>>>> [ 607.196364] [<ffffffff81135b72>] kthread+0xe2/0xf0
>>>> [ 607.196842] [<ffffffff8117e00a>] ? __lock_release+0x1da/0x1f0
>>>> [ 607.197405] [<ffffffff81135a90>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>>>> [ 607.198022] [<ffffffff83d4593c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>> [ 607.198559] [<ffffffff81135a90>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
>>>>
>>>> [ 609.414891] Showing all locks held in the system:
>>>> [ 609.415490] 4 locks held by init/1:
>>>> [ 609.415836] #0: (reboot_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811258a6>] SYSC_reboot+0xe6/0x2a0
>>>> [ 609.416708] #1: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8110b602>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x12/0x20
>>>> [ 609.417712] #2: (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8110b6f7>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x27/0x60
>>>> [ 609.418668] #3: (rcu_preempt_state.onoff_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811c2262>] rcu_cleanup_dead_cpu+0x52/0x250
>>>> [ 609.419819] 1 lock held by rcu_preempt/11:
>>>> [ 609.420277] #0: (rcu_preempt_state.onoff_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811c5f09>] rcu_gp_init+0x169/0x490
>>>> [ 609.421391] 2 locks held by khungtaskd/3087:
>>>> [ 609.421811] #0: (rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff811b0cec>] check_hung_uninterruptible_tasks+0x3c/0x390
>>>> [ 609.422867] #1: (tasklist_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<ffffffff811791ac>] debug_show_all_locks+0x5c/0x270
>>>> [ 609.423841] 2 locks held by sh/7108:
>>>> [ 609.424199] #0: (&tty->ldisc_sem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81c1b03f>] tty_ldisc_ref_wait+0x1f/0x50
>>>> [ 609.425134] #1: (&ldata->atomic_read_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81c1772e>] n_tty_read+0x31e/0x980
>>>>
>>>> It looks like rcu_gp_init() went sleeping with the onoff_mutex held and
>>>> never got it's wakeup, while the rcu_cleanup_dead_cpu() code is waiting
>>>> to grab on that mutex.
>>>
>>> If your workload was busy enough with enough non-SCHED_OTHER activity
>>> that SCHED_OTHER tasks (like RCU's grace-period kthread) don't get to
>>> run, this is expected behavior. If this is reproducible, could you
>>> please try using chrt to increase that kthread's priority?
>>
>> I've tried bumping all the rcu gp related threads before trinity starts, but
>> it still didn't help - got the same hang.
>>
>> Also, it's always comes after that IRQ warning, and when it happens it doesn't
>> look like the vm is doing anything else - the cpu usage (on the host) drops and
>> it seems like it's just waiting.
>
> So you have CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY=y, right? Otherwise, I am at a loss to
> explain why rcu_gp_init() is calling schedule_timeout_uninterruptible().
> Which is fair enough, as even if you do have CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY=y,
> I am at a loss to explain why schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() doesn't
> return after two jiffies.
Indeed I do.
> Ah, but why trust the stack trace? We certainly should not trust the
> list of held locks, given that it shows two separate tasks holding
> rcu_preempt_state.onoff_mutex!!! That would be bad...
I think that the case here is that the GP thread is holding on to the
onoff_mutex, and the rcu_cpu_notify thread is trying to acquire it. Since
lockdep marks locks as held before they are actually acquired this is
why you see 2 threads "holding" the lock.
> But it is legitimate if the rcu_preempt_state.onoff_mutex is simply being
> acquired and released in quick succession. Which seems unlikely, because
> there are only so many CPUs to offline. Besides, the offlining has been
> reportedly held up for 120 seconds.
>
>> btw, wouldn't the same thing happen even when the vm isn't going for a reboot
>> if it was a priority issue?
>
> Indeed, one nagging concern is that the RCU grace-period kthreads might be
> prevented from executing by a very heavy workload. I do have some ideas
> on how to deal with that, but would rather see it really happen first.
> Speculative engineering has its benefits, but... ;-)
>
> Does lockdep show anything?
The lockdep spew I have is what I've attached at the bottom of the original
report, it suggests that the problem indeed looks like what I've described
above.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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