From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rcu_dereference() without protection in select_task_rq_fair()
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:04:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100214170409.GK7084@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1266142358.5273.420.camel@laptop>
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:12:38AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 08:52 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Peter,
> >
> > My lockdep-ified RCU complains about the for_each_domain() in
> > select_task_rq_fair(), see below for the lockdep complaint. I added
> > rcu_dereference_check() annotations as follows:
> >
> > #define for_each_domain_rd(p) \
> > rcu_dereference_check((p), \
> > rcu_read_lock_sched_held() || \
> > lockdep_is_held(&sched_domains_mutex))
> >
> > #define for_each_domain(cpu, __sd) \
> > for (__sd = for_each_domain_rd(cpu_rq(cpu)->sd); __sd; __sd = __sd->parent)
> >
> > In other words, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that for_each_domain()
> > can be called either within an RCU-sched read-side critical section or
> > with sched_domains_mutex held. Lockdep claims that no locks of any
> > kind, RCU or otherwise, were held. I considered the possibility that
> > this was an initialization-time thing, but the code traverses CPU
> > structures rather than task structures.
> >
> > One other possibility is that this is safe due to the fact that we are
> > booting up, before the second CPU has come online. Are you relying on
> > this?
> >
> > For reference, here is the definition of rcu_read_lock_sched_held():
> >
> > static inline int rcu_read_lock_sched_held(void)
> > {
> > int lockdep_opinion = 0;
> >
> > if (debug_locks)
> > lockdep_opinion = lock_is_held(&rcu_sched_lock_map);
> > return lockdep_opinion || preempt_count() != 0;
> > }
> >
> > Help?
>
> We use synchronize_sched() and preempt_disable() for the sched domain
> stuff. The comment above for_each_domain():
>
> /*
> * The domain tree (rq->sd) is protected by RCU's quiescent state transition.
> * See detach_destroy_domains: synchronize_sched for details.
> *
> * The domain tree of any CPU may only be accessed from within
> * preempt-disabled sections.
> */
> #define for_each_domain(cpu, __sd) \
> for (__sd = rcu_dereference(cpu_rq(cpu)->sd); __sd; __sd = __sd->parent)
>
> explains this usage, also see detach_destroy_domains().
>
> So one thing you can do is add (preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) to
> the rcu_read_lock_sched_held() function to catch all those cases that
> rely on preemption without having to add annotations to everything that
> disables preemption.
OK, but doesn't the "preempt_count() != 0" that is in the current version
of rcu_read_lock_sched_held() already cover this check?
In other words, I believe that I have located a usage of for_each_domain()
that violates the rule that it may only be called within preempt-disabled
sections.
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-14 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-11 16:52 rcu_dereference() without protection in select_task_rq_fair() Paul E. McKenney
2010-02-14 10:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-14 17:04 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-02-15 9:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-15 17:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100214170409.GK7084@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.