From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@in.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:18:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110714191809.GF2349@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310665613.27864.50.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 01:46:53PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> egad! Looking at this code more, there's nothing keeping
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special safe! If it can be modified by the kthread,
> and current, then we must use atomic operations or modify under lock.
> Otherwise the old read/modify/write can corrupt it.
>
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special &= ~RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED;
>
> is done before the lock is taken in rcu_read_unlock_special. If the
> kthread is running rcu_boost() then its code:
>
> t->rcu_read_unlock_special |= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED;
>
> Can even negate the removing of the RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED!
<red face>
Excellent catch, Steve, both this and your previous email. Really stupid
mistake on my part. :-(
I believe that this affects only TREE_PREEMPT_RCU kernels with RCU_BOOST
set: interrupt disabling takes care of TINY_PREEMPT_RCU. I think, anyway.
Please see below for a patch that I believe fixes this problem.
It relies on the fact that RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED cannot be set unless
RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED is also set, which allows the two to be in
separate variables. The original ->rcu_read_unlock_special is handled
only by the corresponding thread, while the new ->rcu_boosted is accessed
and updated only with the rcu_node structure's ->lock held.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
index 496770a..2a88747 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -1254,6 +1254,9 @@ struct task_struct {
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU
int rcu_read_lock_nesting;
char rcu_read_unlock_special;
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
+ int rcu_boosted;
+#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
struct list_head rcu_node_entry;
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU */
#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_PREEMPT_RCU
diff --git a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
index 75113cb..8d38a98 100644
--- a/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
+++ b/kernel/rcutree_plugin.h
@@ -342,6 +342,11 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->boost_tasks)
rnp->boost_tasks = np;
+ /* Snapshot and clear ->rcu_boosted with rcu_node lock held. */
+ if (t->rcu_boosted) {
+ special |= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED;
+ t->rcu_boosted = 0;
+ }
#endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST */
t->rcu_blocked_node = NULL;
@@ -358,7 +363,6 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
#ifdef CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
/* Unboost if we were boosted. */
if (special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED) {
- t->rcu_read_unlock_special &= ~RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED;
rt_mutex_unlock(t->rcu_boost_mutex);
t->rcu_boost_mutex = NULL;
}
@@ -1174,7 +1178,7 @@ static int rcu_boost(struct rcu_node *rnp)
t = container_of(tb, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
rt_mutex_init_proxy_locked(&mtx, t);
t->rcu_boost_mutex = &mtx;
- t->rcu_read_unlock_special |= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BOOSTED;
+ t->rcu_boosted = 1;
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rnp->lock, flags);
rt_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* Side effect: boosts task t's priority. */
rt_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* Keep lockdep happy. */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-14 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-14 14:49 INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 16:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-14 16:57 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:16 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 19:15 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:38 ` Dave Jones
2011-07-14 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 19:38 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2011-07-14 16:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 17:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 17:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 19:18 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2011-07-14 19:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-14 20:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 11:05 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 11:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 11:35 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 11:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 18:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 12:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 13:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 14:36 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 15:59 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 16:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-15 16:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 21:48 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-15 22:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-16 19:42 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-17 0:02 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-17 1:56 ` Ed Tomlinson
2011-07-17 14:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-18 15:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-18 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-18 15:29 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 16:55 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 17:03 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 17:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 17:24 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-15 17:42 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-07-15 18:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-07 16:22 Justin P. Mattock
2011-08-11 20:57 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-12-06 10:11 Richard Zidlicky
2009-10-10 23:09 John Kacur
2007-02-08 15:03 Pedro M. López
2006-10-16 14:05 alpha @ steudten Engineering
2006-10-16 14:32 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-16 15:42 ` Randy Dunlap
2006-10-16 15:46 ` Nick Piggin
2006-10-19 6:02 ` Andrew Morton
2006-10-19 6:30 ` Nick Piggin
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=20110714191809.GF2349@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com \
--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