From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
To: Liuye <liu.yeC@h3c.com>
Cc: "jason.wessel@windriver.com" <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
"dianders@chromium.org" <dianders@chromium.org>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"jirislaby@kernel.org" <jirislaby@kernel.org>,
"kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net"
<kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] kdb: Fix the deadlock issue in KDB debugging.
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:09:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240314130916.GE202685@aspen.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56ed54fd241c462189d2d030ad51eac6@h3c.com>
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 07:06:22AM +0000, Liuye wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 01:22:17AM +0000, Liuye wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:04:54AM +0000, Liuye wrote:
> >> >> >On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:37:11AM +0000, Liuye wrote:
> >> >> >> I know that you said schedule_work is not NMI save, which is
> >> >> >> the first issue. Perhaps it can be fixed using
> >> >> >> irq_work_queue. But even if irq_work_queue is used to
> >> >> >> implement it, there will still be a deadlock problem because
> >> >> >> slave cpu1 still has not released the running queue lock of
> >> >> >> master CPU0.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This doesn't sound right to me. Why do you think CPU1 won't
> >> >> >release the run queue lock?
> >> >>
> >> >> In this example, CPU1 is waiting for CPU0 to release
> >> >> dbg_slave_lock.
> >> >
> >> >That shouldn't be a problem. CPU0 will have released that lock by
> >> >the time the irq work is dispatched.
> >>
> >> Release dbg_slave_lock in CPU0. Before that, shcedule_work needs to
> >> be handled, and we are back to the previous issue.
> >
> > Sorry but I still don't understand what problem you think can happen
> > here. What is wrong with calling schedule_work() from the IRQ work
> > handler?
> >
> > Both irq_work_queue() and schedule_work() are calls to queue deferred
> > work. It does not matter when the work is queued (providing we are
> > lock safe). What matters is when the work is actually executed.
> >
> > Please can you describe the problem you think exists based on when
> > the work is executed.
>
> CPU0 enters the KDB process when processing serial port interrupts and
> triggers an IPI (NMI) to other CPUs. After entering a stable state,
> CPU0 is in interrupt context, while other CPUs are in NMI context.
> Before other CPUs enter NMI context, there is a chance to obtain the
> running queue of CPU0.
Focusing on the run queue locks in this analysis is a mistake. Before
the other CPUs enter NMI context there is a chance for them to obtain
*any* locks, including the timer wheel locks.
> At this time, when CPU0 is processing kgdboc_restore_input, calling
> schedule_work, need_more_worker here determines the chance to wake up
> processes on system_wq.
>
> This will cause CPU0 to acquire the running queue lock of this core,
> which is held by other CPUs. but other CPUs are still in NMI context
> and have not exited because waiting for CPU0 to release the
> dbg_slave_lock after schedule_work.
>
> After thinking about it, the problem is not whether schedule_work is
> NMI safe, but that processes on system_wq should not be awakened
> immediately when schedule_work is called.
I disagree with this conclusion.
The problem *is* that schedue_work() is not NMI-safe.
You cannot solve an NMI safety problem by replacing schedule_work()
with another function that is also not NMI-safe. That simply changes
the locks that need to be taken to provoke a deadlock.
> I replaced schedule_work with schedule_delayed_work, and this solved
> my problem.
This may stop some specific reproduction from taking place but it
does not fix the potential deadlock.
I still believe that using irq_work is the only way to solve this
properly. Please try the following change:
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c b/drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c
index 7ce7bb1640054..161b25ecc5e15 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/platform_device.h>
#include <linux/serial_core.h>
+#include <linux/irq_work.h>
#define MAX_CONFIG_LEN 40
@@ -99,10 +100,17 @@ static void kgdboc_restore_input_helper(struct work_struct *dummy)
static DECLARE_WORK(kgdboc_restore_input_work, kgdboc_restore_input_helper);
+static void kgdboc_queue_restore_input_helper(struct irq_work *unused)
+{
+ schedule_work(&kgdboc_restore_input_work);
+}
+
+static DEFINE_IRQ_WORK(kgdboc_restore_input_irq_work, kgdboc_queue_restore_input_helper);
+
static void kgdboc_restore_input(void)
{
if (likely(system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING))
- schedule_work(&kgdboc_restore_input_work);
+ irq_work_queue(&kgdboc_restore_input_irq_work);
}
static int kgdboc_register_kbd(char **cptr)
@@ -133,6 +141,7 @@ static void kgdboc_unregister_kbd(void)
i--;
}
}
+ irq_work_sync(&kgdboc_restore_input_irq_work);
flush_work(&kgdboc_restore_input_work);
}
#else /* ! CONFIG_KDB_KEYBOARD */
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-14 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-28 2:56 [PATCH] kdb: Fix the deadlock issue in KDB debugging LiuYe
2024-02-28 12:05 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-01 3:30 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-01 10:59 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-12 8:37 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-12 9:57 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-12 10:04 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-12 10:24 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-13 1:22 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-13 14:17 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-14 7:06 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-14 13:09 ` Daniel Thompson [this message]
2024-03-15 9:59 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-16 2:34 ` [PATCH v1] " liu.yec
2024-03-20 16:28 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-21 2:26 ` [PATCH V3] " liu.yec
2024-03-21 7:38 ` Greg KH
2024-03-21 7:57 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-21 11:04 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-21 11:50 ` [PATCH V4] " liu.yec
2024-03-22 6:54 ` Jiri Slaby
2024-03-22 7:50 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-22 15:58 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-23 1:41 ` [PATCH V5] " liu.yec
2024-03-25 16:54 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-03-26 0:47 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-26 7:40 ` [PATCH V6] " liu.yec
2024-03-26 8:22 ` Greg KH
2024-03-26 8:54 ` [PATCH V7] " liu.yec
2024-04-02 12:58 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-04-03 6:11 ` [PATCH V8] " liu.yec
2024-04-03 13:58 ` Daniel Thompson
2024-04-03 22:22 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-04-08 1:44 ` LiuYe
2024-04-08 10:29 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-04-09 2:03 ` [PATCH V9] " liu.yec
2024-04-10 2:06 ` [PATCH V10] " liu.yec
2024-04-10 3:59 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-04-10 5:30 ` Greg KH
2024-04-10 5:54 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-04-10 5:59 ` Greg KH
2024-04-10 6:10 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-04-10 6:15 ` Greg KH
2024-04-10 6:30 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-04-10 7:18 ` [PATCH V11] " liu.yec
2024-04-10 8:24 ` 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH V10] " Greg KH
2024-04-10 8:38 ` 答复: " Liuye
2024-03-02 20:44 ` [PATCH] " Greg KH
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=20240314130916.GE202685@aspen.lan \
--to=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jason.wessel@windriver.com \
--cc=jirislaby@kernel.org \
--cc=kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liu.yeC@h3c.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