[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190627153031.GA249127@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 11:30:31 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:34:55AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:24:36 -0400
> Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> > > What am I missing here?
> >
> > This issue I think is
> >
> > (in normal process context)
> > spin_lock_irqsave(rq_lock); // which disables both preemption and interrupt
> > // but this was done in normal process context,
> > // not from IRQ handler
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > <---------- IPI comes in and sets exp_hint
>
> How would an IPI come in here with interrupts disabled?
>
> -- Steve
This is true, could it be rcu_read_unlock_special() got called for some
*other* reason other than the IPI then?
Per Sebastian's stack trace of the recursive lock scenario, it is happening
during cpu_acct_charge() which is called with the rq_lock held.
The only other reasons I know off to call rcu_read_unlock_special() are if
1. the tick indicated that the CPU has to report a QS
2. an IPI in the middle of the reader section for expedited GPs
3. preemption in the middle of a preemptible RCU reader section
1. and 2. are not possible because interrupts are disabled, that's why the
wakeup_softirq even happened.
3. is not possible because we are holding rq_lock in the RCU reader section.
So I am at a bit of a loss how this can happen :-(
Spurious call to rcu_read_unlock_special() may be when it should not have
been called?
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists