From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
peterz@infradead.org, oleg@redhat.com, bp@suse.de,
jkosina@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] CPU hotplug: active_writer not woken up in some cases - deadlock
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:19:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141209141903.GB25340@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1418127811-22629-1-git-send-email-dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:23:31PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Commit b2c4623dcd07 ("rcu: More on deadlock between CPU hotplug and expedited
> grace periods") introduced another problem that can easily be reproduced by
> starting/stopping cpus in a loop.
>
> E.g.:
> for i in `seq 5000`; do
> echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> done
>
> Will result in:
> INFO: task /cpu_start_stop:1 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> Call Trace:
> ([<00000000006a028e>] __schedule+0x406/0x91c)
> [<0000000000130f60>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0xd0/0xd4
> [<0000000000130ff6>] _cpu_up+0x3e/0x1c4
> [<0000000000131232>] cpu_up+0xb6/0xd4
> [<00000000004a5720>] device_online+0x80/0xc0
> [<00000000004a57f0>] online_store+0x90/0xb0
> ...
>
> And a deadlock.
>
> Problem is that if the last ref in put_online_cpus() can't get the
> cpu_hotplug.lock the puts_pending count is incremented, but a sleeping
> active_writer might never be woken up, therefore never exiting the loop in
> cpu_hotplug_begin().
>
> This fix wakes up the active_writer proactively. The writer already goes back to
> sleep if the ref count isn't already down to 0, so this should be fine.
>
> In order to avoid many potential races, we have to:
> - Protect current_writer by a spin lock. When holding this lock we can be sure
> that the writer won't vainsh or change. (use-after-free)
> - Increment the cpu_hotplug.puts_pending count before we test for an
> active_writer. (otherwise a wakeup might get lost)
> - Move setting of TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE in cpu_hotplug_begin() above the
> condition check. (otherwise a wakeup might get lost)
>
> Can't reproduce it with this fix.
Would wait_event()/wake_up() work for the wakeup-writer case?
Thanx, Paul
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/cpu.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index 90a3d01..7489b7a 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ static int cpu_hotplug_disabled;
>
> static struct {
> struct task_struct *active_writer;
> + spinlock_t awr_lock; /* protects active_writer from being changed */
> struct mutex lock; /* Synchronizes accesses to refcount, */
> /*
> * Also blocks the new readers during
> @@ -72,6 +73,7 @@ static struct {
> #endif
> } cpu_hotplug = {
> .active_writer = NULL,
> + .awr_lock = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(cpu_hotplug.awr_lock),
> .lock = __MUTEX_INITIALIZER(cpu_hotplug.lock),
> .refcount = 0,
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> @@ -116,7 +118,13 @@ void put_online_cpus(void)
> if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current)
> return;
> if (!mutex_trylock(&cpu_hotplug.lock)) {
> + /* inc before testing for active_writer to not lose wake ups */
> atomic_inc(&cpu_hotplug.puts_pending);
> + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
> + /* we might be the last one */
> + if (unlikely(cpu_hotplug.active_writer))
> + wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug.active_writer);
> + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
> cpuhp_lock_release();
> return;
> }
> @@ -156,20 +164,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_online_cpus);
> */
> void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
> {
> + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
> cpu_hotplug.active_writer = current;
> + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
>
> cpuhp_lock_acquire();
> for (;;) {
> mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> + __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (atomic_read(&cpu_hotplug.puts_pending)) {
> int delta;
>
> delta = atomic_xchg(&cpu_hotplug.puts_pending, 0);
> cpu_hotplug.refcount -= delta;
> }
> - if (likely(!cpu_hotplug.refcount))
> + if (likely(!cpu_hotplug.refcount)) {
> + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> break;
> - __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> schedule();
> }
> @@ -177,7 +189,9 @@ void cpu_hotplug_begin(void)
>
> void cpu_hotplug_done(void)
> {
> + spin_lock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
> cpu_hotplug.active_writer = NULL;
> + spin_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.awr_lock);
> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock);
> cpuhp_lock_release();
> }
> --
> 1.8.5.5
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-09 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-09 12:23 [PATCH v3] CPU hotplug: active_writer not woken up in some cases - deadlock David Hildenbrand
2014-12-09 14:19 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2014-12-09 16:24 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-12-09 17:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-10 0:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-12-10 3:18 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-12-10 0:12 ` Oleg Nesterov
2014-12-10 7:56 ` David Hildenbrand
2014-12-10 18:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
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=20141209141903.GB25340@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
/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.