Message-ID: <20170922212739.6d7d4d01@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Fri, 22 Sep 2017 21:27:39 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ngo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tracing: Remove RCU work arounds from stack tracer

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:54:55 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 06:15:47PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > 
> > While debugging some RCU issues with the stack tracer, it was discovered
> > that the problem was much more than with the stack tracer itself, but with
> > the saving of the stack trace, which could happen from any WARN() as well.
> > The problem was fixed within kernel_text_address().
> > 
> > One of the bugs that was discovered was that the stack tracer called
> > rcu_enter_irq() unconditionally. Paul McKenney said that could cause issues
> > as well. Instead of adding logic to only call rcu_enter_irq() if RCU is not
> > watching from within the stack tracer, since the core issue has been fixed
> > (within save_stack_trace()), we can simply remove all the logic in the stack
> > tracer that deals with RCU work arounds.  
> 
> I must confess that I am having some difficulty parsing this paragraph,
> especially the last sentence...
> 
> Does this capture it?
> 
> 	One problem is that the stack tracer called rcu_irq_enter()
> 	unconditionally, which is problematic if RCU's last
> 	not-watching-to-watching transition was carried out by
> 	rcu_nmi_enter.	In that case, rcu_irq_enter() actually switches

I thought the rcu_irq_enter() after rcu_nmi_enter() was a separate bug.
Your original complaint was that I called rcu_irq_enter()
unconditionally, and wanted me to only call it if RCU wasn't watching.

But, the new code could possibly have this get called after
rcu_nmi_enter() because we are calling it without in_nmi() being set.


> 	RCU back to the not-watching state for this CPU, which results
> 	in lockdep splats complaining about rcu_read_lock() being
> 	used on an idle (not-watched) CPU.  The first patch of this
> 	series addressed this problem by having rcu_irq_enter() and
> 	rcu_irq_exit() refrain from doing anything when rcu_nmi_enter()
> 	caused RCU to start watching this CPU.	The third patch in this
> 	series caused save_stack_trace() to invoke rcu_nmi_enter() and
> 	rcu_nmi_exit() as needed, so this fourth patch now removes the
> 	rcu_irq_enter() and rcu_irq_exit() from within the stack tracer.
> 
> One further question...  Can I now remove the rcu_irq_enter_disabled()
> logic?

After this goes in. Yes. But that doesn't need to be a stable change.

> 
> > Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> > Fixes: 0be964be0 ("module: Sanitize RCU usage and locking")
> > Suggested-by: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>  
> 
> With the hard-to-parse paragraph fixed:
> 
> Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks, but we may need to go back and forth a bit to get the change
log correct.

Remember the first bug. The one that was fixed by changing
rcu_irq_enter() to rcu_nmi_enter()?

=============================
 WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
 4.13.0-rc7-test+ #117 Tainted: G        W      
 -----------------------------
 /work/git/linux-trace.git/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:305 entry code didn't wake RCU!
 
 other info that might help us debug this:

 
 RCU used illegally from idle CPU!
 rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
 RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state!
 no locks held by swapper/1/0.
 
 stack backtrace:
 CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Tainted: G        W       4.13.0-rc7-test+ #117
 Hardware name: Hewlett-Packard HP Compaq Pro 6300 SFF/339A, BIOS K01 v03.03 07/14/2016
 Call Trace:
  dump_stack+0x86/0xcf
  lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xc5/0x100
  do_error_trap+0x125/0x130
  ? do_error_trap+0x5/0x130
  ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
  ? do_invalid_op+0x5/0x30
  do_invalid_op+0x20/0x30
  invalid_op+0x1e/0x30
 RIP: 0010:module_assert_mutex_or_preempt+0x34/0x40
 RSP: 0018:ffffc900006abc58 EFLAGS: 00010046
 RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffffffffa000a077 RCX: 0000000000000002
 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00000000ffffffff RDI: 0000000000000046
 RBP: ffffc900006abc58 R08: ffffc900006abf40 R09: 0000000000000000
 R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000
 R13: 0000000000000000 R14: ffff8801188d8040 R15: ffffffff81ed5720
  ? 0xffffffffa000a077
  ? module_assert_mutex_or_preempt+0x30/0x40
  __module_address+0x2c/0xf0
  ? 0xffffffffa000a077
  __module_text_address+0x12/0x60
  ? 0xffffffffa000a077
  is_module_text_address+0x1f/0x50
  ? 0xffffffffa000a077
  __kernel_text_address+0x30/0x90
  unwind_get_return_address+0x1f/0x30
  __save_stack_trace+0x83/0xd0
  ? 0xffffffffa000a077
  ? rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit+0x5/0x40
  save_stack_trace+0x1b/0x20
  check_stack+0xf8/0x2f0
  ? rcu_dynticks_eqs_enter+0x30/0x30
  stack_trace_call+0x6e/0x80
  0xffffffffa000a077
  ? ftrace_graph_caller+0x78/0xa8
  ? rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit+0x5/0x40
  rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit+0x5/0x40
  rcu_idle_exit+0xdf/0xf0
  ? rcu_dynticks_eqs_exit+0x5/0x40
  ? rcu_idle_exit+0xdf/0xf0
  do_idle+0x128/0x200
  cpu_startup_entry+0x1d/0x20
  start_secondary+0x108/0x130
  secondary_startup_64+0x9f/0x9f

This was caused by just using rcu_irq_enter(). Not sure if this will
still be an issue or not. But because we now add an rcu_nmi_enter()
without being in_nmi(), we probably should do this. This code doesn't
run if in_nmi() is true, but it could run from the stack trace dump
itself, and that now calls rcu_nmi_enter().

Actually, thinking about this more, this doesn't need to go in stable.
As recursive rcu_irq_enter() calls should not hurt, and you now allow
rcu_irq_enter() to be called even after a rcu_nmi_enter() right?

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists