linux-m68k.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, mhiramat@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, will@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@redhat.com, longman@redhat.com, anna.schumaker@oracle.com,
	boqun.feng@gmail.com, joel.granados@kernel.org,
	kent.overstreet@linux.dev, leonylgao@tencent.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	tfiga@chromium.org, amaindex@outlook.com, jstultz@google.com,
	Mingzhe Yang <mingzhe.yang@ly.com>,
	Eero Tamminen <oak@helsinkinet.fi>,
	linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
	Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>,
	senozhatsky@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] hung_task: show the blocker task if the task is hung on semaphore
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2025 00:42:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d0fe3163-32d9-4d81-81bb-d964f2f43f17@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdVTBSq2D+-rzGTr+Fz52sDFeeApUcG=LdDYBO5sY+rQxQ@mail.gmail.com>

@Masami

On 2025/8/22 23:37, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Lance,
> 
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 at 17:18, Lance Yang <lance.yang@linux.dev> wrote:
>> On 2025/8/22 15:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> (this time the right email thread, I hope ;-)
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 at 17:23, Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Inspired by mutex blocker tracking[1], this patch makes a trade-off to
>>>> balance the overhead and utility of the hung task detector.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike mutexes, semaphores lack explicit ownership tracking, making it
>>>> challenging to identify the root cause of hangs. To address this, we
>>>> introduce a last_holder field to the semaphore structure, which is
>>>> updated when a task successfully calls down() and cleared during up().
>>>>
>>>> The assumption is that if a task is blocked on a semaphore, the holders
>>>> must not have released it. While this does not guarantee that the last
>>>> holder is one of the current blockers, it likely provides a practical hint
>>>> for diagnosing semaphore-related stalls.
>>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 194a9b9e843b4077
>>> ("hung_task: show the blocker task if the task is hung on
>>> semaphore") in v6.16-rc1.
>>>
>>> Eero reported [1] two WARNINGS seen with v6.16 on emulated Atari.
>>> I managed to reproduce it on ARAnyM using the provided config (it does
>>> not happen with atari_defconfig), and bisected it to this commit:
>>
>> The two warnings are directly related, and the first one
>> is the root cause, IIUC.
>>
>>>
>>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 39 at include/linux/hung_task.h:48
>>
>> The first warning at hung_task.h:48 is triggered because
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(lock_ptr & BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK) check fails.
>>
>> static inline void hung_task_set_blocker(void *lock, unsigned long type)
>> {
>>          unsigned long lock_ptr = (unsigned long)lock;
>>
>>          WARN_ON_ONCE(!lock_ptr);
>>          WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(current->blocker));
>>
>>          /*
>>           * If the lock pointer matches the BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK, return
>>           * without writing anything.
>>           */
>>          if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lock_ptr & BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK)) <- here
>>                  return;
>>
>> This logic assumes the lock pointer is sufficiently aligned,
>> allowing the lower bits to be used for the lock type. But it
>> appears we are being passed an unaligned lock pointer,
>> unfortunately.
> 
> Thanks, that gives me a clue...
> 
> include/linux/hung_task.h-/*
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * @blocker: Combines lock address and blocking type.
> include/linux/hung_task.h- *
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * Since lock pointers are at least 4-byte
> aligned(32-bit) or 8-byte
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * aligned(64-bit). This leaves the 2 least
> bits (LSBs) of the pointer
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * always zero. So we can use these bits to
> encode the specific blocking
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * type.
> include/linux/hung_task.h- *
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * Type encoding:
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * 00 - Blocked on mutex
>   (BLOCKER_TYPE_MUTEX)
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * 01 - Blocked on semaphore
>   (BLOCKER_TYPE_SEM)
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * 10 - Blocked on rw-semaphore as READER
>   (BLOCKER_TYPE_RWSEM_READER)
> include/linux/hung_task.h- * 11 - Blocked on rw-semaphore as WRITER
>   (BLOCKER_TYPE_RWSEM_WRITER)
> include/linux/hung_task.h- */
> include/linux/hung_task.h-#define BLOCKER_TYPE_MUTEX            0x00UL
> include/linux/hung_task.h-#define BLOCKER_TYPE_SEM              0x01UL
> include/linux/hung_task.h-#define BLOCKER_TYPE_RWSEM_READER     0x02UL
> include/linux/hung_task.h-#define BLOCKER_TYPE_RWSEM_WRITER     0x03UL
> include/linux/hung_task.h-
> include/linux/hung_task.h:#define BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK             0x03UL
> 
> On m68k, the minimum alignment of int and larger is 2 bytes.

Ah, thanks, that's good to know! It clearly explains why the
WARN_ON_ONCE() is triggering.

> If you want to use the lowest 2 bits of a pointer for your own use,
> you must make sure data is sufficiently aligned.

You're right. Apparently I missed that :(

I'm wondering if there's a way to check an architecture's minimum
alignment at compile-time. If so, we could disable this feature on
architectures that don't guarantee 4-byte alignment.

If not, the fallback is to adjust the runtime checks. We could change
the first WARN_ON_ONCE() to a simple if that returns silently for
unaligned pointers. Then we can just remove the second WARN_ON_ONCE()
in hung_task_clear_blocker() altogether.

static inline void hung_task_set_blocker(void *lock, unsigned long type)
{
	unsigned long lock_ptr = (unsigned long)lock;

	WARN_ON_ONCE(!lock_ptr);
	WARN_ON_ONCE(READ_ONCE(current->blocker));

	/*
	 * If the lock pointer matches the BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK, return
	 * without writing anything.
	 */
	if (lock_ptr & BLOCKER_TYPE_MASK)
		return;

	WRITE_ONCE(current->blocker, lock_ptr | type);
}

static inline void hung_task_clear_blocker(void)
{
	WRITE_ONCE(current->blocker, 0UL);
}

This would fix both warnings and let the feature gracefully do nothing
on architectures like m68k.

Thanks,
Lance

  reply	other threads:[~2025-08-22 16:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20250414145945.84916-1-ioworker0@gmail.com>
     [not found] ` <20250414145945.84916-3-ioworker0@gmail.com>
2025-08-22  7:38   ` [PATCH v5 2/3] hung_task: show the blocker task if the task is hung on semaphore Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-08-22 15:18     ` Lance Yang
2025-08-22 15:37       ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2025-08-22 16:42         ` Lance Yang [this message]
2025-08-23  0:27           ` Finn Thain
2025-08-23  4:47             ` Lance Yang
2025-08-23  5:00               ` [PATCH 1/1] hung_task: fix warnings caused by unaligned lock pointers Lance Yang
2025-08-26  4:49                 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-08-26  5:11                   ` Lance Yang
2025-08-23  7:40               ` [PATCH 1/1] hung_task: fix warnings by enforcing alignment on lock structures Lance Yang
2025-08-23 11:06                 ` John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
2025-08-23 21:53                 ` kernel test robot
2025-08-24  0:47                   ` Finn Thain
2025-08-24  3:03                     ` Lance Yang
2025-08-24  4:18                       ` Finn Thain
2025-08-24  5:02                         ` Lance Yang
2025-08-24  5:57                           ` Finn Thain
2025-08-24  6:18                             ` Lance Yang
2025-08-26  5:02                 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-08-26  5:16                   ` Lance Yang
2025-08-23  7:49               ` [PATCH v5 2/3] hung_task: show the blocker task if the task is hung on semaphore Lance Yang

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=d0fe3163-32d9-4d81-81bb-d964f2f43f17@linux.dev \
    --to=lance.yang@linux.dev \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=amaindex@outlook.com \
    --cc=anna.schumaker@oracle.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=ioworker0@gmail.com \
    --cc=joel.granados@kernel.org \
    --cc=jstultz@google.com \
    --cc=kent.overstreet@linux.dev \
    --cc=leonylgao@tencent.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingzhe.yang@ly.com \
    --cc=oak@helsinkinet.fi \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
    --cc=tfiga@chromium.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).