[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705111200400.1758@nanos>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 12:01:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
cc: LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, will.deacon@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com, Sebastian Sewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
jbaron@...mai.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, suzuki.poulose@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:30:39AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 May 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 May 2017, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > [ 0.182133] [<ffff200008155218>] lockdep_assert_hotplug_held+0x78/0x98
> > > > [ 0.182161] [<ffff20000840a36c>] __static_key_slow_inc+0x174/0x2e0
> > > > [ 0.182188] [<ffff20000840a654>] static_key_enable_cpuslocked+0x64/0xb0
> > > > [ 0.182215] [<ffff2000080a1120>] update_cpu_capabilities+0x178/0x2d8
> > > > [ 0.182243] [<ffff20000809e72c>] update_cpu_errata_workarounds_cpuslocked+0x1c/0x28
> > > > [ 0.182270] [<ffff2000080a1420>] check_local_cpu_capabilities+0x1a0/0x248
> > > > [ 0.182295] [<ffff2000080a2d18>] secondary_start_kernel+0x1e8/0x478
> > > > [ 0.182317] [<000000008219a1b4>] 0x8219a1b4
> > > > [ 0.182337] CPU features: enabling workaround for ARM erratum 834220
> > > > [ 0.182362] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that the secondary CPU doesn't hold the rwsem when it
> > > > calls __static_key_slow_inc() in its boot path. It cannot take the
> > > > rwsem, since the primaary CPU holds this for the duration of onlining
> > > > the secondary CPU.
> >
> > Looking deeper into that:
> >
> > secondary_start_kernel()
> > check_local_cpu_capabilities()
> > update_cpu_errata_workarounds()
> > update_cpu_capabilities()
> > static_key_enable()
> > __static_key_slow_inc()
> > jump_label_lock()
> > mutex_lock(&jump_label_mutex);
> >
> > How is that supposed to work?
> >
> > That call path is the low level CPU bringup, running in the context of the
> > idle task of that CPU with interrupts and preemption disabled. Taking a
> > mutex in that context, even if in that case the mutex is uncontended, is a
> > NONO.
>
> Urgh; good point. Thanks for taking a look.
>
> I think I can solve both issues by deferring poking the keys, so I'll
> give that a go.
>
> As an aside, do we have anything that should detect the broken mutex
> usage? I've been testing kernels with LOCKDEP, PROVE_LOCKING,
> DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, and friends, and nothing has complained so far.
Peter and myself were wondering about that already. No idea why that
doesn't yell at you.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists