| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20190625165238.GJ26519@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:52:38 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time/tick-broadcast: Fix tick_broadcast_offline()
lockdep complaint
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 06:20:59PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 07:16:24AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 04:05:38PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 06:54:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > And it allows dispensing with the initialization. How about like
> > > > the following?
> > >
> > > Looks good to me!
> >
> > Limited rcutorture testing looking good thus far. Here is hoping!
> >
> > Frederic, you OK with this approach?
>
> Yep, all good!
Very well, the commit is as shown below. This is on current -rcu,
but feel free to take it if you would like, Peter. Just let me know
and I will mark it so that I don't push it myself. (I need to keep
it in -rcu until I rebase onto a version of mainline that contains
it so as to avoid spurious rcutorture failures.)
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit b02b73cc95b6e3d912f36de20116b520cc3072c7
Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu May 30 05:39:25 2019 -0700
time/tick-broadcast: Fix tick_broadcast_offline() lockdep complaint
The TASKS03 and TREE04 rcutorture scenarios produce the following
lockdep complaint:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
================================
WARNING: inconsistent lock state
5.2.0-rc1+ #513 Not tainted
--------------------------------
inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage.
migration/1/14 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
(____ptrval____) (tick_broadcast_lock){?...}, at: tick_broadcast_offline+0xf/0x70
{IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at:
lock_acquire+0xb0/0x1c0
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x3c/0x50
tick_broadcast_switch_to_oneshot+0xd/0x40
tick_switch_to_oneshot+0x4f/0xd0
hrtimer_run_queues+0xf3/0x130
run_local_timers+0x1c/0x50
update_process_times+0x1c/0x50
tick_periodic+0x26/0xc0
tick_handle_periodic+0x1a/0x60
smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x80/0x2a0
apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x4e/0x60
rcu_nocb_gp_kthread+0x15d/0x590
kthread+0xf3/0x130
ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
irq event stamp: 171
hardirqs last enabled at (171): [<ffffffff8a201a37>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
hardirqs last disabled at (170): [<ffffffff8a201a53>] trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
softirqs last enabled at (0): [<ffffffff8a264ee0>] copy_process.part.56+0x650/0x1cb0
softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(tick_broadcast_lock);
<Interrupt>
lock(tick_broadcast_lock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by migration/1/14:
#0: (____ptrval____) (clockevents_lock){+.+.}, at: tick_offline_cpu+0xf/0x30
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 14 Comm: migration/1 Not tainted 5.2.0-rc1+ #513
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x5e/0x8b
print_usage_bug+0x1fc/0x216
? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x1b0/0x1b0
mark_lock+0x1f2/0x280
__lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x18f0
? __lock_acquire+0x21b/0x18f0
? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x4e/0x60
lock_acquire+0xb0/0x1c0
? tick_broadcast_offline+0xf/0x70
_raw_spin_lock+0x33/0x40
? tick_broadcast_offline+0xf/0x70
tick_broadcast_offline+0xf/0x70
tick_offline_cpu+0x16/0x30
take_cpu_down+0x7d/0xa0
multi_cpu_stop+0xa2/0xe0
? cpu_stop_queue_work+0xc0/0xc0
cpu_stopper_thread+0x6d/0x100
smpboot_thread_fn+0x169/0x240
kthread+0xf3/0x130
? sort_range+0x20/0x20
? kthread_cancel_delayed_work_sync+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reproduce, run the following rcutorture test:
tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --duration 5 --kconfig "CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC=y CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y" --configs "TASKS03 TREE04"
It turns out that tick_broadcast_offline() was an innocent bystander.
After all, interrupts are supposed to be disabled throughout
take_cpu_down(), and therefore should have been disabled upon entry to
tick_offline_cpu() and thus to tick_broadcast_offline(). This suggests
that one of the CPU-hotplug notifiers was incorrectly enabling interrupts,
and leaving them enabled on return.
Some debugging code showed that the culprit was sched_cpu_dying().
It had irqs enabled after return from sched_tick_stop(). Which in turn
had irqs enabled after return from cancel_delayed_work_sync(). Which is a
wrapper around __cancel_work_timer(). Which can sleep in the case where
something else is concurrently trying to cancel the same delayed work,
and as Thomas Gleixner pointed out on IRC, sleeping is a decidedly bad
idea when you are invoked from take_cpu_down(), regardless of the state
you leave interrupts in upon return.
Code inspection located no reason why the delayed work absolutely
needed to be canceled from sched_tick_stop(): The work is not
bound to the outgoing CPU by design, given that the whole point is
to collect statistics without disturbing the outgoing CPU.
This commit therefore simply drops the cancel_delayed_work_sync() from
sched_tick_stop(). Instead, a new ->state field is added to the tick_work
structure so that the delayed-work handler function sched_tick_remote()
can avoid reposting itself. A cpu_is_offline() check is also added to
sched_tick_remote() to avoid mucking with the state of an offlined CPU
(though it does appear safe to do so). The sched_tick_start() and
sched_tick_stop() functions also update ->state, and sched_tick_start()
also schedules the delayed work if ->state indicates that it is not
already in flight.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
[ paulmck: Apply Peter Zijlstra and Frederic Weisbecker atomics feedback. ]
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 102dfcf0a29a..d7be6d4b6a0a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -3050,8 +3050,36 @@ void scheduler_tick(void)
struct tick_work {
int cpu;
+ atomic_t state;
struct delayed_work work;
};
+/* Values for ->state, see diagram below. */
+#define TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE 0
+#define TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINING 1
+#define TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING 2
+
+/*
+ * State diagram for ->state:
+ *
+ *
+ * TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE
+ * | ^
+ * | |
+ * | | sched_tick_remote()
+ * | |
+ * | |
+ * +--TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINING
+ * | ^
+ * | |
+ * sched_tick_start() | | sched_tick_stop()
+ * | |
+ * V |
+ * TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING
+ *
+ *
+ * Other transitions get WARN_ON_ONCE(), except that sched_tick_remote()
+ * and sched_tick_start() are happy to leave the state in RUNNING.
+ */
static struct tick_work __percpu *tick_work_cpu;
@@ -3064,6 +3092,7 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct work_struct *work)
struct task_struct *curr;
struct rq_flags rf;
u64 delta;
+ int os;
/*
* Handle the tick only if it appears the remote CPU is running in full
@@ -3077,7 +3106,7 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct work_struct *work)
rq_lock_irq(rq, &rf);
curr = rq->curr;
- if (is_idle_task(curr))
+ if (is_idle_task(curr) || cpu_is_offline(cpu))
goto out_unlock;
update_rq_clock(rq);
@@ -3097,13 +3126,18 @@ static void sched_tick_remote(struct work_struct *work)
/*
* Run the remote tick once per second (1Hz). This arbitrary
* frequency is large enough to avoid overload but short enough
- * to keep scheduler internal stats reasonably up to date.
+ * to keep scheduler internal stats reasonably up to date. But
+ * first update state to reflect hotplug activity if required.
*/
- queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, dwork, HZ);
+ os = atomic_fetch_add_unless(&twork->state, -1, TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(os == TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE);
+ if (os == TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING)
+ queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, dwork, HZ);
}
static void sched_tick_start(int cpu)
{
+ int os;
struct tick_work *twork;
if (housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_TICK))
@@ -3112,15 +3146,20 @@ static void sched_tick_start(int cpu)
WARN_ON_ONCE(!tick_work_cpu);
twork = per_cpu_ptr(tick_work_cpu, cpu);
- twork->cpu = cpu;
- INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&twork->work, sched_tick_remote);
- queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &twork->work, HZ);
+ os = atomic_xchg(&twork->state, TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(os == TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING);
+ if (os == TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINE) {
+ twork->cpu = cpu;
+ INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&twork->work, sched_tick_remote);
+ queue_delayed_work(system_unbound_wq, &twork->work, HZ);
+ }
}
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
static void sched_tick_stop(int cpu)
{
struct tick_work *twork;
+ int os;
if (housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_FLAG_TICK))
return;
@@ -3128,7 +3167,10 @@ static void sched_tick_stop(int cpu)
WARN_ON_ONCE(!tick_work_cpu);
twork = per_cpu_ptr(tick_work_cpu, cpu);
- cancel_delayed_work_sync(&twork->work);
+ /* There cannot be competing actions, but don't rely on stop-machine. */
+ os = atomic_xchg(&twork->state, TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_OFFLINING);
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(os != TICK_SCHED_REMOTE_RUNNING);
+ /* Don't cancel, as this would mess up the state machine. */
}
#endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU */
@@ -3136,7 +3178,6 @@ int __init sched_tick_offload_init(void)
{
tick_work_cpu = alloc_percpu(struct tick_work);
BUG_ON(!tick_work_cpu);
-
return 0;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists