[PATCH] perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU

[PATCH] perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU

[Peter Zijlstra]

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;
 }
 

Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:17:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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>

Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> ---
>  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;
>  }
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>