From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE5BC5B579 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C32208E3 for ; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727007AbfF2AGe (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:06:34 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:59900 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726707AbfF2AGd (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:06:33 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x5T01vKZ118939 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:06:32 -0400 Received: from e13.ny.us.ibm.com (e13.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.203]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tdtv13t3w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:06:32 -0400 Received: from localhost by e13.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 01:06:31 +0100 Received: from b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (9.57.198.25) by e13.ny.us.ibm.com (146.89.104.200) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Sat, 29 Jun 2019 01:06:27 +0100 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp22035.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x5T06Qou48562592 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:06:26 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739F4B2064; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:06:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B2AB205F; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:06:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (unknown [9.70.82.26]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2019 00:06:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W541 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5163F16C39C0; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:06:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:06:27 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , rcu , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Josh Triplett , Mathieu Desnoyers , Lai Jiangshan Subject: Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs Reply-To: paulmck@linux.ibm.com References: <20190627184107.GA26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190628135433.GE3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190628153050.GU26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190628184026.fds6scgi2pnjnc5p@linutronix.de> <20190628185219.GA26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190628192407.GA89956@google.com> <20190628200423.GB26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190628214018.GB249127@google.com> <20190628222547.GE26519@linux.ibm.com> <20190628231241.GA9243@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190628231241.GA9243@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19062900-0064-0000-0000-000003F508CD X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00011348; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000286; SDB=6.01224702; UDB=6.00644609; IPR=6.01005895; MB=3.00027513; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-06-29 00:06:30 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19062900-0065-0000-0000-00003E11EF63 Message-Id: <20190629000627.GF26519@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-06-28_12:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1906280278 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:12:41PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 03:25:47PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:40:18PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > Hi Paul, > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:04:23PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Commit > > > > > > > - 23634ebc1d946 ("rcu: Check for wakeup-safe conditions in > > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock_special()") does not trigger the bug within 94 > > > > > > > attempts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - 48d07c04b4cc1 ("rcu: Enable elimination of Tree-RCU softirq > > > > > > > processing") needed 12 attempts to trigger the bug. > > > > > > > > > > > > That matches my belief that 23634ebc1d946 ("rcu: Check for wakeup-safe > > > > > > conditions in rcu_read_unlock_special()") will at least greatly decrease > > > > > > the probability of this bug occurring. > > > > > > > > > > I was just typing a reply that I can't reproduce it with: > > > > > rcu: Check for wakeup-safe conditions in rcu_read_unlock_special() > > > > > > > > > > I am trying to revert enough of this patch to see what would break things, > > > > > however I think a better exercise might be to understand more what the patch > > > > > does why it fixes things in the first place ;-) It is probably the > > > > > deferred_qs thing. > > > > > > > > The deferred_qs flag is part of it! Looking forward to hearing what > > > > you come up with as being the critical piece of this commit. > > > > > > The new deferred_qs flag indeed saves the machine from the dead-lock. > > > > > > If we don't want the deferred_qs, then the below patch also fixes the issue. > > > However, I am more sure than not that it does not handle all cases (such as > > > what if we previously had an expedited grace period IPI in a previous reader > > > section and had to to defer processing. Then it seems a similar deadlock > > > would present. But anyway, the below patch does fix it for me! It is based on > > > your -rcu tree commit 23634ebc1d946f19eb112d4455c1d84948875e31 (rcu: Check > > > for wakeup-safe conditions in rcu_read_unlock_special()). > > > > The point here being that you rely on .b.blocked rather than > > .b.deferred_qs. Hmmm... There are a number of places that check all > > the bits via the .s leg of the rcu_special union. The .s check in > > rcu_preempt_need_deferred_qs() should be OK because it is conditioned > > on t->rcu_read_lock_nesting of zero or negative. > > Do rest of those also work out OK? > > > > It would be nice to remove the flag, but doing so clearly needs careful > > review and testing. > > Agreed. I am planning to do an audit of this code within the next couple of > weeks so I will be on the look out for any optimization opportunities related > to this. Will let you know if this can work. For now I like your patch better > because it is more conservative and doesn't cause any space overhead. Fixing the bug in a maintainable manner is the priority, to be sure. However, simplifications, assuming that they work, are very much worth considering as well. And Murphy says that there are still a number of bugs and optimization opportunities. ;-) > If you'd like, please free to included my Tested-by on it: > > Tested-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) Will do, thank you! > If you had a chance, could you also point to me any tests that show > performance improvement with the irqwork patch, on the expedited GP usecase? > I'd like to try it out as well. I guess rcuperf should have some? As a first thing to try, I suggest running rcuperf with both readers and writers, with only expedited grace periods, and with most (or maybe even all) CPUs having nohz_full enabled. Thanx, Paul