[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP61CD3023B63D84AF4BF0E480270@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:35:11 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: lockdep-related warning in
kernel/sched/deadline.c::find_lock_later_rq()
On 10/21/15 9:20 PM, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after fixing task migrations for SCHED_DEADLINE, I started to see some
> lockdep-related warnings that look like this:
> [ 794.428081] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at
> /home/luca/Src/GRUB/linux-reclaiming/kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3407
> lock_release+0x3f4/0x440()
> [ 794.428439] releasing a pinned lock
> [ 794.428439] Modules linked in:
> [ 794.428439] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 4.3.0-rc5+ #32
> [ 794.428439] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009),
> BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> [ 794.428439] ffffffff81c946d0 ffff880007b03cc8 ffffffff8135abd2
> ffff880007b03d10
> [ 794.428439] ffff880007b03d00 ffffffff810546f1 ffff880007b159d8
> ffffffff81096663
> [ 794.428439] ffff88000754c558 0000000000000001 ffff88000754bd80
> ffff880007b03d60
> [ 794.428439] Call Trace:
> [ 794.428439] <IRQ> [<ffffffff8135abd2>] dump_stack+0x4b/0x69
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff810546f1>] warn_slowpath_common+0x81/0xc0
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81096663>] ? find_lock_later_rq+0x103/0x180
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81054777>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x47/0x50
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff8109feb4>] lock_release+0x3f4/0x440
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff8194215a>] _raw_spin_unlock+0x1a/0x30
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81096663>] find_lock_later_rq+0x103/0x180
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81096741>] push_dl_task.part.33+0x61/0x190
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81096a94>] dl_task_timer+0x194/0x2e0
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81096900>] ? task_woken_dl+0x60/0x60
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff810c3a87>] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x107/0x470
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff810c3f82>] ? hrtimer_interrupt+0x82/0x1b0
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff810c3fa6>] hrtimer_interrupt+0xa6/0x1b0
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81039570>] local_apic_timer_interrupt+0x30/0x60
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81039ee8>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x38/0x50
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff819436c4>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x84/0x90
> [ 794.428439] <EOI> [<ffffffff8100ea3b>] ? default_idle+0x1b/0x140
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff8100ea39>] ? default_idle+0x19/0x140
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff8100f25a>] arch_cpu_idle+0xa/0x10
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff81097e45>] default_idle_call+0x25/0x40
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff810981d0>] cpu_startup_entry+0x310/0x390
> [ 794.428439] [<ffffffff810380c3>] start_secondary+0xf3/0x100
> [ 794.428439] ---[ end trace 1d35bf076299f814 ]---
> (this happended on KVM, but I can trigger similar warnings on real
> hardware too).
>
> This was not happening before my last patch, because push_dl_task()
> never migrated
> any task, and always returned before calling find_lock_later_rq()...
>
> Now, if I understand correctly the issue is that dl_task_timer() does:
> rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> [...]
> if (has_pushable_dl_tasks(rq))
> push_dl_task(rq);
> with task_rq_lock() that pins rq->lock and push_tl_task() that invokes
> find_lock_later_rq() that unlocks rq->lock() while it is pinned.
>
> I am not sure about how to fix this issue: as a first try, I did
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 142df26..5b1ba95 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -668,8 +668,11 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart dl_task_timer(struct
> hrtimer *timer)
> * Queueing this task back might have overloaded rq, check if we
> need
> * to kick someone away.
> */
> - if (has_pushable_dl_tasks(rq))
> + if (has_pushable_dl_tasks(rq)) {
> + lockdep_unpin_lock(&rq->lock);
> push_dl_task(rq);
> + lockdep_pin_lock(&rq->lock);
> + }
> #endif
>
> unlock:
>
> This removes the warning, but I am not sure if it is the correct fix
> (is it
> valid to unpin rq->lock, here?).
>
> If someone can confirm that this is the correct approach, I'll test
> the patch a
> little bit more and then I'll send a properly signed-off patch;
> otherwise, if
> someone can suggest the correct approach I'll try it.
wake_up_new_task()
-> __task_rq_lock()
-> task_woken()
-> push_dl/rt_tasks()
-> push_dl/rt_task()
I think you also should consider the lockdep pin_lock in this path.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
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