netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: mroos@linux.ee
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	shemminger@vyatta.com,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: suspicious RCU usage warnings in 3.3.0
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:35:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120413133513.GB2457@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.SOC.1.00.1204131444150.2736@math.ut.ee>

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 02:55:12PM +0300, mroos@linux.ee wrote:
> > sparc64: Eliminate obsolete __handle_softirq() function
> > 
> > The invocation of softirq is now handled by irq_exit(), so there is no
> > need for sparc64 to invoke it on the trap-return path.  In fact, doing so
> > is a bug because if the trap occurred in the idle loop, this invocation
> > can result in lockdep-RCU failures.  The problem is that RCU ignores idle
> > CPUs, and the sparc64 trap-return path to the softirq handlers fails to
> > tell RCU that the CPU must be considered non-idle while those handlers
> > are executing.  This means that RCU is ignoring any RCU read-side critical
> > sections in those handlers, which in turn means that RCU-protected data
> > can be yanked out from under those read-side critical sections.
> > 
> > The shiny new lockdep-RCU ability to detect RCU read-side critical sections
> > that RCU is ignoring located this problem.
> > 
> > The fix is straightforward: Make sparc64 stop manually invoking the
> > softirq handlers.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> It works for me on Sun Fire V100 - no more RCU warnings under ping 
> flood.
> 
> Tested-by: Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>

OK, if this thing is going to actually work, I guess I need to update
the changelog to give credit where it is due, please see below.

My main concern about my patch is my removal of this line:

	bne,pn			%icc, __handle_softirq

It is quite possible that this should instead change to look as follows:

	bne,pn			%icc, __handle_preemption

This code is under #ifndef CONFIG_SMP, so Meelis's testing would not
reach it.

Anyway, patch with updated changelog below.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

sparc64: Eliminate obsolete __handle_softirq() function

The invocation of softirq is now handled by irq_exit(), so there is no
need for sparc64 to invoke it on the trap-return path.  In fact, doing so
is a bug because if the trap occurred in the idle loop, this invocation
can result in lockdep-RCU failures.  The problem is that RCU ignores idle
CPUs, and the sparc64 trap-return path to the softirq handlers fails to
tell RCU that the CPU must be considered non-idle while those handlers
are executing.  This means that RCU is ignoring any RCU read-side critical
sections in those handlers, which in turn means that RCU-protected data
can be yanked out from under those read-side critical sections.

The shiny new lockdep-RCU ability to detect RCU read-side critical sections
that RCU is ignoring located this problem.

The fix is straightforward: Make sparc64 stop manually invoking the
softirq handlers.

Reported-by: Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>
Suggested-by: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>

diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S b/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S
index 77f1b95..9171fc2 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/rtrap_64.S
@@ -20,11 +20,6 @@
 
 		.text
 		.align			32
-__handle_softirq:
-		call			do_softirq
-		 nop
-		ba,a,pt			%xcc, __handle_softirq_continue
-		 nop
 __handle_preemption:
 		call			schedule
 		 wrpr			%g0, RTRAP_PSTATE, %pstate
@@ -89,9 +84,7 @@ rtrap:
 		cmp			%l1, 0
 
 		/* mm/ultra.S:xcall_report_regs KNOWS about this load. */
-		bne,pn			%icc, __handle_softirq
 		 ldx			[%sp + PTREGS_OFF + PT_V9_TSTATE], %l1
-__handle_softirq_continue:
 rtrap_xcall:
 		sethi			%hi(0xf << 20), %l4
 		and			%l1, %l4, %l4

  reply	other threads:[~2012-04-13 13:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-28  8:45 suspicious RCU usage warnings in 3.3.0 Meelis Roos
2012-03-28 21:45 ` David Miller
2012-04-11 15:08   ` Meelis Roos
2012-04-11 23:08     ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12  0:10       ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-04-12  0:18         ` David Miller
2012-04-12  0:45           ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12  1:03             ` David Miller
2012-04-12  1:53               ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-12  1:08             ` David Miller
2012-04-12  4:54               ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-04-13 11:55                 ` mroos
2012-04-13 13:35                   ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2012-04-13 14:55                     ` David Miller
2012-04-13 16:30                       ` Paul E. McKenney

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=20120413133513.GB2457@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mroos@linux.ee \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shemminger@vyatta.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).