Message-ID: <20191121150110.GB2889@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:01:10 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     josh@...htriplett.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        gkohli@...eaurora.org, prsood@...eaurora.org,
        pkondeti@...eaurora.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: Fix missed wakeup of exp_wq waiters

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 09:48:05AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> On 11/21/2019 9:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:28:38AM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 11/20/2019 1:08 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 03:17:07AM +0000, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > > > For the tasks waiting in exp_wq inside exp_funnel_lock(),
> > > > > there is a chance that they might be indefinitely blocked
> > > > > in below scenario:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. There is a task waiting on exp sequence 0b'100' inside
> > > > >      exp_funnel_lock(). This task blocks at wq index 1.
> > > > > 
> > > > >      synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> > > > >        s = 0b'100'
> > > > >        exp_funnel_lock()
> > > > >          wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3]
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2. The expedited grace period (which above task blocks for)
> > > > >      completes and task (task1) holding exp_mutex queues
> > > > >      worker and schedules out.
> > > > > 
> > > > >      synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> > > > >        s = 0b'100'
> > > > >        queue_work(rcu_gp_wq, &rew.rew_work)
> > > > >          wake_up_worker()
> > > > >            schedule()
> > > > > 
> > > > > 3. kworker A picks up the queued work and completes the exp gp
> > > > >      sequence and then blocks on exp_wake_mutex, which is held
> > > > >      by another kworker, which is doing wakeups for expedited_sequence
> > > > >      0.
> > > > > 
> > > > >      rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> > > > >        rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> > > > >          rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence is incremented
> > > > >                                  // to 0b'100'
> > > > >          mutex_lock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex)
> > > > > 
> > > > > 4. task1 does not enter wait queue, as sync_exp_work_done() returns true,
> > > > >      and releases exp_mutex.
> > > > > 
> > > > >      wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3],
> > > > >        sync_exp_work_done(rsp, s));
> > > > >      mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex);
> > > > > 
> > > > > 5. Next exp GP completes, and sequence number is incremented:
> > > > > 
> > > > >      rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> > > > >        rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> > > > >          rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence = 0b'200'
> > > > > 
> > > > > 6. kworker A acquires exp_wake_mutex. As it uses current
> > > > >      expedited_sequence, it wakes up workers from wrong wait queue
> > > > >      index - it should have worken wait queue corresponding to
> > > > >      0b'100' sequence, but wakes up the ones for 0b'200' sequence.
> > > > >      This results in task at step 1 indefinitely blocked.
> > > > > 
> > > > >      rcu_exp_wait_wake()
> > > > >        wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rsp->expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
> > > > > 
> > > > > This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend, as scsi
> > > > > device was stuck in _synchronize_rcu_expedited().
> > > > > 
> > > > > schedule()
> > > > > synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> > > > > synchronize_rcu()
> > > > > scsi_device_quiesce()
> > > > > scsi_bus_suspend()
> > > > > dpm_run_callback()
> > > > > __device_suspend()
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fix this by using the correct exp sequence number, the one which
> > > > > owner of the exp_mutex initiated and passed to kworker,
> > > > > to index the wait queue, inside rcu_exp_wait_wake().
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
> > > > 
> > > > Queued, thank you!
> > > > 
> > > > I reworked the commit message to make it easier to follow the sequence
> > > > of events.  Please see below and let me know if I messed anything up.
> > > > 
> > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > 
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > commit d887fd2a66861f51ed93b5dde894b9646a5569dd
> > > > Author: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
> > > > Date:   Tue Nov 19 03:17:07 2019 +0000
> > > > 
> > > >       rcu: Fix missed wakeup of exp_wq waiters
> > > >       Tasks waiting within exp_funnel_lock() for an expedited grace period to
> > > >       elapse can be starved due to the following sequence of events:
> > > >       1.      Tasks A and B both attempt to start an expedited grace
> > > >               period at about the same time.  This grace period will have
> > > >               completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
> > > >               ->expedited_sequence field are 0b'0100', for example, when the
> > > >               initial value of this counter is zero.  Task A wins, and thus
> > > >               does the actual work of starting the grace period, including
> > > >               acquiring the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the
> > > >               counter to 0b'0001'.
> > > >       2.      Because task B lost the race to start the grace period, it
> > > >               waits on ->expedited_sequence to reach 0b'0100' inside of
> > > >               exp_funnel_lock(). This task therefore blocks on the rcu_node
> > > >               structure's ->exp_wq[1] field, keeping in mind that the
> > > >               end-of-grace-period value of ->expedited_sequence (0b'0100')
> > > >               is shifted down two bits before indexing the ->exp_wq[] field.
> > > >       3.      Task C attempts to start another expedited grace period,
> > > >               but blocks on ->exp_mutex, which is still held by Task A.
> > > >       4.      The aforementioned expedited grace period completes, so that
> > > >               ->expedited_sequence now has the value 0b'0100'.  A kworker task
> > > >               therefore acquires the rcu_state structure's ->exp_wake_mutex
> > > >               and starts awakening any tasks waiting for this grace period.
> > > >       5.      One of the first tasks awakened happens to be Task A.  Task A
> > > >               therefore releases the rcu_state structure's ->exp_mutex,
> > > >               which allows Task C to start the next expedited grace period,
> > > >               which causes the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
> > > >               ->expedited_sequence field to become 0b'0101'.
> > > >       6.      Task C's expedited grace period completes, so that the lower four
> > > >               bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now
> > > >               become 0b'1000'.
> > > >       7.      The kworker task from step 4 above continues its wakeups.
> > > >               Unfortunately, the wake_up_all() refetches the rcu_state
> > > >               structure's .expedited_sequence field:
> > > 
> > > This might not be true. I think wake_up_all(), which internally calls
> > > __wake_up(), will use a single wq_head for doing all wakeups. So, a single
> > > .expedited_sequence value would be used to get wq_head.
> > > 
> > > void __wake_up(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, ...)
> > 
> > The wake_up_all() really is selecting among four different ->exp_wq[]
> > array entries:
> > 
> > wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
> > 
> > So I lost you here.  Are you saying that the wake_up_all() will somehow
> > be operating on ->exp_wq[1], which is where Task B is blocked?  Or that
> > Task B would instead be blocked on ->exp_wq[2]?  Or that failing to wake
> > up Task B is OK for some reason?  Or something else entirely?
> 
> My bad; I was thinking only of the case where there is only one
> rnp node (which is also the root) in RCU tree. In case of only
> one rnp node also, issue can be seen. Please ignore my
> comment. The commit description looks good to me.

Thank you for checking!

And the sequence of events below looks greatly improved over your
original.  I suspect that there are more similar bugs to find in
Linux-kernel RCU, so please use a carefully labeled style like that
below when reporting the next one.

							Thanx, Paul

> Thanks
> Neeraj
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > > However, below sequence of events would result in problem:
> > > 
> > > 1.      Tasks A starts an expedited grace period at about the same time.
> > >          This grace period will have completed when the lower four bits
> > > 		of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field are 0b'0100',
> > > 		for example, when the initial value of this counter is zero.
> > > 		Task A wins, acquires the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and
> > > 		sets the counter to 0b'0001'.
> > > 
> > > 2.      The aforementioned expedited grace period completes, so that
> > >          ->expedited_sequence now has the value 0b'0100'.  A kworker task
> > >          therefore acquires the rcu_state structure's ->exp_wake_mutex
> > >          and starts awakening any tasks waiting for this grace period.
> > >          This kworker gets preempted while unlocking wq_head lock
> > > 
> > >          wake_up_all()
> > >            __wake_up()
> > >              __wake_up_common_lock()
> > >                spin_unlock_irqrestore()
> > >                  __raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore()
> > >                    preempt_enable()
> > >                      __preempt_schedule()
> > > 
> > > 3.      One of the first tasks awakened happens to be Task A.  Task A
> > >          therefore releases the rcu_state structure's ->exp_mutex,
> > > 
> > > 4.      Tasks B and C both attempt to start an expedited grace
> > >          period at about the same time.  This grace period will have
> > >          completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
> > >          ->expedited_sequence field are 0b'1000'. Task B wins, and thus
> > >          does the actual work of starting the grace period, including
> > >          acquiring the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the
> > >          counter to 0b'0101'.
> > > 
> > > 5.      Because task C lost the race to start the grace period, it
> > >          waits on ->expedited_sequence to reach 0b'1000' inside of
> > >          exp_funnel_lock(). This task therefore blocks on the rcu_node
> > >          structure's ->exp_wq[2] field, keeping in mind that the
> > >          end-of-grace-period value of ->expedited_sequence (0b'1000')
> > >          is shifted down two bits before indexing the ->exp_wq[] field.
> > > 
> > > 6.      Task B queues work to complete expedited grace period. This
> > >          task is preempted just before wait_event call. Kworker task picks
> > > 		up the work queued by task B and and completes grace period, so
> > > 		that the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
> > > 		->expedited_sequence field now become 0b'1000'. This kworker starts
> > > 		waiting on the exp_wake_mutex, which is owned by kworker doing
> > > 		wakeups for expedited sequence initiated by task A.
> > > 
> > > 7.      Task B schedules in and finds its expedited sequence snapshot has
> > >          completed; so, it does not enter waitq and releases exp_mutex. This
> > > 		allows Task D to start the next expedited grace period,
> > >          which causes the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
> > >          ->expedited_sequence field to become 0b'1001'.
> > > 
> > > 8.      Task D's expedited grace period completes, so that the lower four
> > >          bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now
> > >          become 0b'1100'.
> > > 
> > > 9.      kworker from step 2 is scheduled in and releases exp_wake_mutex;
> > >          kworker correspnding to Task B's expedited grace period acquires
> > > 		exp_wake_mutex and starts wakeups. Unfortunately, it used the
> > > 		rcu_state structure's .expedited_sequence field for determining
> > > 		the waitq index.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
> > > 
> > >          This results in the wakeup being applied to the rcu_node
> > >          structure's ->exp_wq[3] field, which is unfortunate given that
> > >          Task C is instead waiting on ->exp_wq[2].
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >               wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
> > > >               This results in the wakeup being applied to the rcu_node
> > > >               structure's ->exp_wq[2] field, which is unfortunate given that
> > > >               Task B is instead waiting on ->exp_wq[1].
> > > >       On a busy system, no harm is done (or at least no permanent harm is done).
> > > >       Some later expedited grace period will redo the wakeup.  But on a quiet
> > > >       system, such as many embedded systems, it might be a good long time before
> > > >       there was another expedited grace period.  On such embedded systems,
> > > >       this situation could therefore result in a system hang.
> > > >       This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend (which
> > > >       usually qualifies as a quiet time) due to a SCSI device being stuck in
> > > >       _synchronize_rcu_expedited(), with the following stack trace:
> > > >               schedule()
> > > >               synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> > > >               synchronize_rcu()
> > > >               scsi_device_quiesce()
> > > >               scsi_bus_suspend()
> > > >               dpm_run_callback()
> > > >               __device_suspend()
> > > >       This commit therefore prevents such delays, timeouts, and hangs by
> > > >       making rcu_exp_wait_wake() use its "s" argument consistently instead of
> > > >       refetching from rcu_state.expedited_sequence.
> > > 
> > > Do we need a "fixes" tag here?
> > > 
> > > >       Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>
> > > >       Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > index 6ce598d..4433d00a 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
> > > > @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(unsigned long s)
> > > >    			spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock);
> > > >    		}
> > > >    		smp_mb(); /* All above changes before wakeup. */
> > > > -		wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
> > > > +		wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3]);
> > > >    	}
> > > >    	trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, s, TPS("endwake"));
> > > >    	mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex);
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of
> > > the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> 
> -- 
> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of
> the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Powered by blists - more mailing lists