From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, josh@joshtriplett.org,
dvhltc@us.ibm.com, niv@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: lockdep rcu-preempt and synchronize_srcu() awareness
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:17:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100208211729.GF6797@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100208191858.GA16288@Krystal>
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 02:18:58PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just though about the following deadlock scenario involving rcu preempt and
> mutexes. I see that lockdep does not warn about it, and it actually triggers a
> deadlock on my box. It might be worth addressing for TREE_PREEMPT_RCU configs.
>
> CPU A:
> mutex_lock(&test_mutex);
> synchronize_rcu();
> mutex_unlock(&test_mutex);
>
> CPU B:
> rcu_read_lock();
> mutex_lock(&test_mutex);
> mutex_unlock(&test_mutex);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> But given that it's not legit to take a mutex from within a rcu read lock in
> non-preemptible configs, I guess it's not much of a real-life problem, but I
> think SRCU is also affected, because there is no lockdep annotation around
> synchronize_srcu().
Indeed, doing this with SRCU would result in deadlock, and it is quite
legal to acquire mutexes from within SRCU read-side critical sections.
And similar deadlocks can be constructed using pthread_mutex_lock() and
user-space RCU implementations.
The basic rule is "don't wait for a grace period to complete while in
the corresponding flavor of RCU read-side critical section". Your point,
that it is possible to wait indirectly, is well taken.
> So I think it would be good to mark rcu_read_lock/unlock as not permitting
> "might_sleep()" in non preemptable RCU configs, and having a look at lockdep
> SRCU support might be worthwhile.
Given the in-progress lockdep enhancements to RCU, the information is at
least present. I can easily check for the direct case, but must defer
to Peter Z on the indirect case.
Thanx, Paul
> The following test module triggers the problem:
>
>
> /* test-rcu-lockdep.c
> *
> * Test RCU-awareness of lockdep. Don't look at the interface, it's aweful.
> * run, in parallel:
> *
> * cat /proc/testa
> * cat /proc/testb
> */
>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/mutex.h>
> #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
>
> struct proc_dir_entry *pentrya = NULL;
> struct proc_dir_entry *pentryb = NULL;
>
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(test_mutex);
>
> static int my_opena(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> mutex_lock(&test_mutex);
> synchronize_rcu();
> mutex_unlock(&test_mutex);
>
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
>
> static struct file_operations my_operationsa = {
> .open = my_opena,
> };
>
> static int my_openb(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> rcu_read_lock();
> mutex_lock(&test_mutex);
> ssleep(1);
> mutex_unlock(&test_mutex);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
>
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
>
> static struct file_operations my_operationsb = {
> .open = my_openb,
> };
>
> int init_module(void)
> {
> pentrya = create_proc_entry("testa", 0444, NULL);
> if (pentrya)
> pentrya->proc_fops = &my_operationsa;
>
> pentryb = create_proc_entry("testb", 0444, NULL);
> if (pentryb)
> pentryb->proc_fops = &my_operationsb;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> void cleanup_module(void)
> {
> remove_proc_entry("testa", NULL);
> remove_proc_entry("testb", NULL);
> }
>
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Mathieu Desnoyers");
> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("lockdep rcu test");
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-08 21:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-08 19:18 lockdep rcu-preempt and synchronize_srcu() awareness Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-08 19:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-08 21:17 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2010-02-08 21:57 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2010-02-08 23:28 ` 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=20100208211729.GF6797@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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