Re: [PATCH 0/8] rcu: Ensure rcu read site is deadlock-immunity

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 10:33:15AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 08/08/2013 10:12 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 09:47 +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > 
> >>> [  393.641012]        CPU0
> >>> [  393.641012]        ----
> >>> [  393.641012]   lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> >>> [  393.641012]   <Interrupt>
> >>> [  393.641012]     lock(&lock->wait_lock);
> >>
> >> Patch2 causes it!
> >> When I found all lock which can (chained) nested in rcu_read_unlock_special(),
> >> I didn't notice rtmutex's lock->wait_lock is not nested in irq-disabled.
> >>
> >> Two ways to fix it:
> >> 1) change rtmutex's lock->wait_lock, make it alwasys irq-disabled.
> >> 2) revert my patch2
> > 
> > Your patch 2 states:
> > 
> > "After patch 10f39bb1, "special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED" can't be true
> > in irq nor softirq.(due to RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED can only be set
> > when preemption)"
> 
> Patch5 adds "special & RCU_READ_UNLOCK_BLOCKED" back in irq nor softirq.
> This new thing is handle in patch5 if I did not do wrong things in patch5.
> (I don't notice rtmutex's lock->wait_lock is not irqs-disabled in patch5)
> 
> > 
> > But then below we have:
> > 
> > 
> >>
> >>> [  393.641012] 
> >>> [  393.641012]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>> [  393.641012] 
> >>> [  393.641012] no locks held by rcu_torture_rea/697.
> >>> [  393.641012] 
> >>> [  393.641012] stack backtrace:
> >>> [  393.641012] CPU: 3 PID: 697 Comm: rcu_torture_rea Not tainted 3.11.0-rc1+ #1
> >>> [  393.641012] Hardware name: Bochs Bochs, BIOS Bochs 01/01/2007
> >>> [  393.641012]  ffffffff8586fea0 ffff88001fcc3a78 ffffffff8187b4cb ffffffff8104a261
> >>> [  393.641012]  ffff88001e1a20c0 ffff88001fcc3ad8 ffffffff818773e4 0000000000000000
> >>> [  393.641012]  ffff880000000000 ffff880000000001 ffffffff81010a0a 0000000000000001
> >>> [  393.641012] Call Trace:
> >>> [  393.641012]  <IRQ>  [<ffffffff8187b4cb>] dump_stack+0x4f/0x84
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff8104a261>] ? console_unlock+0x291/0x410
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff818773e4>] print_usage_bug+0x1f5/0x206
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff81010a0a>] ? save_stack_trace+0x2a/0x50
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810ae603>] mark_lock+0x283/0x2e0
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810ada10>] ? print_irq_inversion_bug.part.40+0x1f0/0x1f0
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810aef66>] __lock_acquire+0x906/0x1d40
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810ae94b>] ? __lock_acquire+0x2eb/0x1d40
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810ae94b>] ? __lock_acquire+0x2eb/0x1d40
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810b0a65>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x210
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff818860f3>] ? rt_mutex_unlock+0x53/0x100
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff81886d26>] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x50
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff818860f3>] ? rt_mutex_unlock+0x53/0x100
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff818860f3>] rt_mutex_unlock+0x53/0x100
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810ee3ca>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x17a/0x2a0
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810ee803>] rcu_check_callbacks+0x313/0x950
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff8107a6bd>] ? hrtimer_run_queues+0x1d/0x180
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810abb9d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff8105bae3>] update_process_times+0x43/0x80
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810a9801>] tick_sched_handle.isra.10+0x31/0x40
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810a98f7>] tick_sched_timer+0x47/0x70
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff8107941c>] __run_hrtimer+0x7c/0x490
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810a260d>] ? ktime_get_update_offsets+0x4d/0xe0
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff810a98b0>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0xa0/0xa0
> >>> [  393.641012]  [<ffffffff8107a017>] hrtimer_interrupt+0x107/0x260
> > 
> > The hrtimer_interrupt is calling a rt_mutex_unlock? How did that happen?
> > Did it first call a rt_mutex_lock?
> > 
> > If patch two was the culprit, I'm thinking the idea behind patch two is
> > wrong. The only option is to remove patch number two!
> 
> removing patch number two can solve the problem found be Paul, but it is not the best.
> because I can't declare that rcu is deadlock-immunity
> (it will be deadlock if rcu read site overlaps with rtmutex's lock->wait_lock
> if I only remove patch2)
> I must do more things, but I think it is still better than changing rtmutex's lock->wait_lock.

NP, I will remove your current patches and wait for an updated set.

							Thanx, Paul