linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
	josh@joshtriplett.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
	jiangshanlai@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	sramana@codeaurora.org, prsood@codeaurora.org,
	pkondeti@codeaurora.org, markivx@codeaurora.org,
	peterz@infradead.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: Query regarding synchronize_sched_expedited and resched_cpu
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 11:06:10 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919020610.GF5994@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170919015027.GD5994@X58A-UD3R>

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:50:27AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 04:53:11PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So, Byungchul, any enlightenment?  Please see lockdep splat below.
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > [   35.310179] ======================================================
> > [   35.310749] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > [   35.310749] 4.13.0-rc4+ #1 Not tainted
> > [   35.310749] ------------------------------------------------------
> > [   35.310749] torture_onoff/766 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [   35.313943]  ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb905f5a6>] takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] but task is already holding lock:
> > [   35.313943]  (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb90c5e42>] irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] -> #1 (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}:
> > [   35.313943]        __mutex_lock+0x65/0x960
> > [   35.313943]        mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> > [   35.313943]        irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> > [   35.313943]        irq_affinity_online_cpu+0x13/0xd0
> > [   35.313943]        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xa7/0x8b0
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] -> #0 ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}:
> > [   35.313943]        check_prev_add+0x401/0x800
> > [   35.313943]        __lock_acquire+0x1100/0x11a0
> > [   35.313943]        lock_acquire+0x9e/0x1e0
> > [   35.313943]        wait_for_completion+0x36/0x130
> > [   35.313943]        takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [   35.313943]        cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xa7/0x8b0
> > [   35.313943]        cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x3d/0x80
> > [   35.313943]        _cpu_down+0xbb/0xf0
> > [   35.313943]        do_cpu_down+0x39/0x50
> > [   35.313943]        cpu_down+0xb/0x10
> > [   35.313943]        torture_offline+0x75/0x140
> > [   35.313943]        torture_onoff+0x102/0x1e0
> > [   35.313943]        kthread+0x142/0x180
> > [   35.313943]        ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943]        CPU0                    CPU1
> > [   35.313943]        ----                    ----
> > [   35.313943]   lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> > [   35.313943]                                lock((complete)&st->done);
> > [   35.313943]                                lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> > [   35.313943]   lock((complete)&st->done);
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> Hello Paul and Steven,
> 
> This is saying:
> 
> Thread A
> --------
> takedown_cpu()
>    irq_lock_sparse()
>    wait_for_completion(&st->done) // Wait for completion of B
>    irq_unlock_sparse()
> 
> Thread B
> --------
> cpuhp_invoke_callback()
>    irq_lock_sparse() // Wait for A to irq_unlock_sparse()
>    (on the way going to complete(&st->done))
> 
> So, lockdep consider this as a deadlock.
> Is it possible to happen?

In addition, if it's impossible, then we should fix lock class
assignments so that the locks actually have different classes.

> Thanks,
> Byungchul
> 
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] 3 locks held by torture_onoff/766:
> > [   35.313943]  #0:  (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb9060be2>] do_cpu_down+0x22/0x50
> > [   35.313943]  #1:  (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffffb90acc41>] percpu_down_write+0x21/0xf0
> > [   35.313943]  #2:  (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb90c5e42>] irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> > [   35.313943] 
> > [   35.313943] stack backtrace:
> > [   35.313943] CPU: 7 PID: 766 Comm: torture_onoff Not tainted 4.13.0-rc4+ #1
> > [   35.313943] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Ubuntu-1.8.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
> > [   35.313943] Call Trace:
> > [   35.313943]  dump_stack+0x67/0x97
> > [   35.313943]  print_circular_bug+0x21d/0x330
> > [   35.313943]  ? add_lock_to_list.isra.31+0xc0/0xc0
> > [   35.313943]  check_prev_add+0x401/0x800
> > [   35.313943]  ? wake_up_q+0x70/0x70
> > [   35.313943]  __lock_acquire+0x1100/0x11a0
> > [   35.313943]  ? __lock_acquire+0x1100/0x11a0
> > [   35.313943]  ? add_lock_to_list.isra.31+0xc0/0xc0
> > [   35.313943]  lock_acquire+0x9e/0x1e0
> > [   35.313943]  ? takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [   35.313943]  wait_for_completion+0x36/0x130
> > [   35.313943]  ? takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [   35.313943]  ? stop_machine_cpuslocked+0xb9/0xd0
> > [   35.313943]  ? cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x8b0/0x8b0
> > [   35.313943]  ? cpuhp_complete_idle_dead+0x10/0x10
> > [   35.313943]  takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [   35.313943]  cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xa7/0x8b0
> > [   35.313943]  cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x3d/0x80
> > [   35.313943]  _cpu_down+0xbb/0xf0
> > [   35.313943]  do_cpu_down+0x39/0x50
> > [   35.313943]  cpu_down+0xb/0x10
> > [   35.313943]  torture_offline+0x75/0x140
> > [   35.313943]  torture_onoff+0x102/0x1e0
> > [   35.313943]  kthread+0x142/0x180
> > [   35.313943]  ? torture_kthread_stopping+0x70/0x70
> > [   35.313943]  ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
> > [   35.313943]  ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-19  2:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-15 11:14 Query regarding synchronize_sched_expedited and resched_cpu Neeraj Upadhyay
2017-09-17  1:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-17  6:07   ` Neeraj Upadhyay
2017-09-18 15:11     ` Steven Rostedt
2017-09-18 16:01       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-18 16:12         ` Steven Rostedt
2017-09-18 16:24           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-18 16:29             ` Steven Rostedt
2017-09-18 16:55               ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-18 23:53                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-19  1:23                   ` Steven Rostedt
2017-09-19  2:26                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-19  1:50                   ` Byungchul Park
2017-09-19  2:06                     ` Byungchul Park [this message]
2017-09-19  2:33                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-19  2:48                         ` Byungchul Park
2017-09-19  4:04                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-19  5:37                             ` Boqun Feng
2017-09-19  6:11                               ` Mike Galbraith
2017-09-19  6:53                                 ` Byungchul Park
2017-09-19 13:40                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-21 13:57                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-21 15:33                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-19  1:55               ` Byungchul Park
2017-09-19 15:31             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-19 15:58               ` Steven Rostedt
2017-09-19 16:12                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-21 13:59               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-21 16:00                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-21 16:30                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-21 16:47                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-21 13:55       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-21 15:31         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-09-21 16:18           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-09-21 15:46         ` Steven Rostedt

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=20170919020610.GF5994@X58A-UD3R \
    --to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=markivx@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=neeraju@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=prsood@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=sramana@codeaurora.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).