From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751909Ab1GOLfy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:35:54 -0400
Received: from mail001.aei.ca ([206.123.6.130]:56106 "EHLO mail001.aei.ca"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751462Ab1GOLfx (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:35:53 -0400
From: Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 07:35:49 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.0.0-rc7-crc+; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; )
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        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
References: <20110714144946.GA3354@swordfish.minsk.epam.com> <201107150705.46248.edt@aei.ca> <1310729362.2586.325.camel@twins>
In-Reply-To: <1310729362.2586.325.camel@twins>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201107150735.50478.edt@aei.ca>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 15 July 2011 07:29:22 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 07:05 -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426] -> #1 (rcu_node_level_0){..-...}:
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff8108b7e5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x140
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff8157808b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff810ba797>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x197/0x2d0
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff8103f2f5>] select_task_rq_fair+0x585/0xa80
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff8104633b>] try_to_wake_up+0x17b/0x360
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff81046575>] wake_up_process+0x15/0x20
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff810528f4>] irq_exit+0xb4/0x100
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff8158197e>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6e/0x99
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff81580c53>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff810ba6e9>] __rcu_read_unlock+0xe9/0x2d0 
> > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [  920.659426]        [<ffffffff814c20d4>] sock_def_readable+0x94/0xc0
> 
> Ed, are you perchance running with force_irqthreads?

Yes.  

I'm off to work - will test any patches when I get back in 8-10 hours.

Thanks
Ed

> Paul, what appears to be happening here is that some rcu_read_unlock()
> gets interrupted, possibly before calling rcu_read_unlock_special(),
> possibly not if the interrupt is itself the timer interrupt.
> 
> Supposing ->rcu_read_unlock_special is set before, any wakeup happening
> from an interrupt hitting __rcu_read_unlock():
> 
> void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> {
>         struct task_struct *t = current;
>                 
>         barrier();  /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
>         --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
>         barrier();  /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
>         if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
>             unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
>                 rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
>         WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> }
> 
> After --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting, but before calling
> rcu_read_unlock_special(), will trigger this lock inversion.
> 
> The alternative case, ->rcu_read_unlock_special is not set yet, it can
> be set if the interrupt hitting in that same spot above, is the timer
> interrupt, and the wakeup happens either from the softirq ran from the
> hard IRQ tail, or as I suspect here happens, the wakeup of ksoftirqd/#.