From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/semaphore: Use wake_q to wake up processes outside lock critical section
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 15:49:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0d477668-e369-24fa-ffd2-1cb560910d2c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220909192848.963982-1-longman@redhat.com>
On 9/9/22 15:28, Waiman Long wrote:
> It was found that a circular lock dependency can happen with the
> following locking sequence:
>
> +--> (console_sem).lock --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock --+
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------+
>
> The &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock sequence is very common in all the
> task_rq_lock() calls.
>
> The &rq->__lock --> (console_sem).lock sequence happens when the
> scheduler code calling printk() or more likely the various WARN*()
> macros while holding the rq lock. The (console_sem).lock is actually
> a raw spinlock guarding the semaphore. In the particular lockdep splat
> that I saw, it was caused by SCHED_WARN_ON() call in update_rq_clock().
> To work around this locking sequence, we may have to ban all WARN*()
> calls when the rq lock is held, which may be too restrictive, or we
> may have to add a WARN_DEFERRED() call and modify all the call sites
> to use it.
>
> Even then, a deferred printk or WARN function may still call
> console_trylock() which may, in turn, calls up_console_sem() leading
> to this locking sequence.
>
> The other ((console_sem).lock --> &p->pi_lock) locking sequence
> was caused by the fact that the semaphore up() function is calling
> wake_up_process() while holding the semaphore raw spinlock. This lockiing
> sequence can be easily eliminated by moving the wake_up_processs()
> call out of the raw spinlock critical section using wake_q which is
> what this patch implements. That is the easiest and the most certain
> way to break this circular locking sequence.
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220118153254.358748-1-longman@redhat.com/
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Ping!
Note that the current printk_deferred() code path may also hit this
problem as an up() call of console_sem may be issued.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-19 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-09 19:28 [PATCH v2] locking/semaphore: Use wake_q to wake up processes outside lock critical section Waiman Long
2022-09-19 19:49 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2023-09-21 0:05 ` John Stultz
2023-09-21 0:37 ` Waiman Long
2023-09-21 7:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-21 7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-22 18:45 ` Waiman Long
2023-09-22 19:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-23 0:29 ` Waiman Long
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-01-22 19:17 Waiman Long
2025-01-26 2:21 ` Waiman Long
2022-02-10 18:10 Waiman Long
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=0d477668-e369-24fa-ffd2-1cb560910d2c@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox