From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: mingo@kernel.org
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 21:17:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130708191742.GB25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
Subject: perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU
Jiri managed to trigger:
[] ======================================================
[] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[] 3.10.0+ #228 Tainted: G W
[] -------------------------------------------------------
[] p/6613 is trying to acquire lock:
[] (rcu_node_0){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff810ca797>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0xa7/0x250
[]
[] but task is already holding lock:
[] (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810f2879>] perf_lock_task_context+0xd9/0x2c0
[]
[] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[]
[] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[]
[] -> #4 (&ctx->lock){-.-...}:
[] -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
[] -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
[] -> #1 (&rnp->nocb_gp_wq[1]){......}:
[] -> #0 (rcu_node_0){..-...}:
Paul was quick to explain that due to preemptible RCU we cannot call
rcu_read_unlock() while holding scheduler (or nested) locks when part of the
read side critical section was preemptible.
Therefore solve it by making the entire RCU read side non-preemptible.
Also pull out the retry from under the non-preempt to play nice with RT.
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -947,8 +947,18 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc
{
struct perf_event_context *ctx;
- rcu_read_lock();
retry:
+ /*
+ * One of the few rules of preemptible RCU is that one cannot do
+ * rcu_read_unlock() while holding a scheduler (or nested) lock when
+ * part of the read side critical section was preemptible -- see
+ * rcu_read_unlock_special().
+ *
+ * Since ctx->lock nests under rq->lock we must ensure the entire read
+ * side critical section is non-preemptible.
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
+ rcu_read_lock();
ctx = rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn]);
if (ctx) {
/*
@@ -964,6 +974,8 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, *flags);
if (ctx != rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn])) {
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, *flags);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ preempt_enable();
goto retry;
}
@@ -973,6 +985,7 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc
}
}
rcu_read_unlock();
+ preempt_enable();
return ctx;
}
next reply other threads:[~2013-07-08 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-08 19:17 Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2013-07-08 19:46 ` [PATCH] perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU 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=20130708191742.GB25631@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.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