* next-20191108: qemu arm64: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
@ 2019-11-11 7:59 Anders Roxell
2019-11-11 13:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Anders Roxell @ 2019-11-11 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: paulmck, joel; +Cc: netdev, linux-kernel, davem, kuznet, yoshfuji
Hi,
I'm seeing the following warning when I'm booting an arm64 allmodconfig
kernel [1] on linux-next tag next-20191108, is this anything you've seen
before ?
The code seems to have introduced that is f0ad0860d01e ("ipv4: ipmr:
support multiple tables") in 2010 and the warning was added reacently
28875945ba98 ("rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking").
[ 32.496021][ T1] =============================
[ 32.497616][ T1] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
[ 32.499614][ T1] 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2 Not tainted
[ 32.502018][ T1] -----------------------------
[ 32.503976][ T1] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:136 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
[ 32.506746][ T1]
[ 32.506746][ T1] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 32.506746][ T1]
[ 32.509794][ T1]
[ 32.509794][ T1] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1
[ 32.512661][ T1] 1 lock held by swapper/0/1:
[ 32.514169][ T1] #0: ffffa000150dd678 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}, at: register_pernet_subsys+0x24/0x50
[ 32.517621][ T1]
[ 32.517621][ T1] stack backtrace:
[ 32.519930][ T1] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2
[ 32.523063][ T1] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
[ 32.524787][ T1] Call trace:
[ 32.525946][ T1] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2d0
[ 32.527433][ T1] show_stack+0x20/0x30
[ 32.528811][ T1] dump_stack+0x204/0x2ac
[ 32.530258][ T1] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xf4/0x108
[ 32.531993][ T1] ipmr_get_table+0xc8/0x170
[ 32.533496][ T1] ipmr_new_table+0x48/0xa0
[ 32.535002][ T1] ipmr_net_init+0xe8/0x258
[ 32.536465][ T1] ops_init+0x280/0x2d8
[ 32.537876][ T1] register_pernet_operations+0x210/0x420
[ 32.539707][ T1] register_pernet_subsys+0x30/0x50
[ 32.541372][ T1] ip_mr_init+0x54/0x180
[ 32.542785][ T1] inet_init+0x25c/0x3e8
[ 32.544186][ T1] do_one_initcall+0x4c0/0xad8
[ 32.545757][ T1] kernel_init_freeable+0x3e0/0x500
[ 32.547443][ T1] kernel_init+0x14/0x1f0
[ 32.548875][ T1] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
Cheers,
Anders
[1] http://people.linaro.org/~anders.roxell/kernel_config-next-20191108.config
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: next-20191108: qemu arm64: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage 2019-11-11 7:59 next-20191108: qemu arm64: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage Anders Roxell @ 2019-11-11 13:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-11-13 9:11 ` Anders Roxell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2019-11-11 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anders Roxell; +Cc: joel, netdev, linux-kernel, davem, kuznet, yoshfuji On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:59:25AM +0100, Anders Roxell wrote: > Hi, > > I'm seeing the following warning when I'm booting an arm64 allmodconfig > kernel [1] on linux-next tag next-20191108, is this anything you've seen > before ? > > > The code seems to have introduced that is f0ad0860d01e ("ipv4: ipmr: > support multiple tables") in 2010 and the warning was added reacently > 28875945ba98 ("rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking"). > > > [ 32.496021][ T1] ============================= > [ 32.497616][ T1] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > [ 32.499614][ T1] 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2 Not tainted > [ 32.502018][ T1] ----------------------------- > [ 32.503976][ T1] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:136 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > [ 32.506746][ T1] > [ 32.506746][ T1] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 32.506746][ T1] > [ 32.509794][ T1] > [ 32.509794][ T1] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 > [ 32.512661][ T1] 1 lock held by swapper/0/1: > [ 32.514169][ T1] #0: ffffa000150dd678 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}, at: register_pernet_subsys+0x24/0x50 > [ 32.517621][ T1] > [ 32.517621][ T1] stack backtrace: > [ 32.519930][ T1] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2 > [ 32.523063][ T1] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) > [ 32.524787][ T1] Call trace: > [ 32.525946][ T1] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2d0 > [ 32.527433][ T1] show_stack+0x20/0x30 > [ 32.528811][ T1] dump_stack+0x204/0x2ac > [ 32.530258][ T1] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xf4/0x108 > [ 32.531993][ T1] ipmr_get_table+0xc8/0x170 So this one is invoking ipmr_for_each_table(), which in turn invokes list_for_each_entry_rcu(), which really does want to be in an RCU read-side critical section. (But you can pass it an optional additional lockdep expressions. > [ 32.533496][ T1] ipmr_new_table+0x48/0xa0 And this does look like update-side code... > [ 32.535002][ T1] ipmr_net_init+0xe8/0x258 And this one is marked with "__net_init", which turns out to be __init. So this is being invoked during early boot (see inet_init() below). Or with RTNL held when invoked at runtime. So, can we make a lockdep expression for this combination? The RTNL part is easy, something like this in include/linux/rtnetlink.h: #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING extern int lockdep_rtnl_is_held(void); #else #define lockdep_rtnl_is_held() 1 #endif And in net/core/rtnetlink.c: #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING int lockdep_rtnl_is_held(void) { return lockdep_is_held(&rtnl_mutex); } #endif > [ 32.536465][ T1] ops_init+0x280/0x2d8 > [ 32.537876][ T1] register_pernet_operations+0x210/0x420 > [ 32.539707][ T1] register_pernet_subsys+0x30/0x50 > [ 32.541372][ T1] ip_mr_init+0x54/0x180 > [ 32.542785][ T1] inet_init+0x25c/0x3e8 And this is an fs_initcall(). This is late enough during boot that RTNL could conceivably be held, but I don't see evidence of that. One approach would be to hold RTNL across this initialization code. So the other approach would be to have a global variable in net/ipv4/ipmr.c whose definition depends on whether lockdep is enabled: #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING int ip_mr_initialized; void ip_mr_now_initialized(void) { ip_mr_initialized = 1; } #else const int ip_mr_initialized = 1; void ip_mr_now_initialized(void) { } #endif Then at the end of ip_mr_init(): ip_mr_now_initialized(); And finally change the CONFIG_IP_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES definition of ipmr_for_each_table() to be something like: #define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \ list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \ lockdep_rtnl_is_held() || !ip_mr_initialized) > [ 32.544186][ T1] do_one_initcall+0x4c0/0xad8 > [ 32.545757][ T1] kernel_init_freeable+0x3e0/0x500 > [ 32.547443][ T1] kernel_init+0x14/0x1f0 > [ 32.548875][ T1] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 Does that work for you? Thanx, Paul ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: next-20191108: qemu arm64: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage 2019-11-11 13:34 ` Paul E. McKenney @ 2019-11-13 9:11 ` Anders Roxell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Anders Roxell @ 2019-11-13 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: paulmck Cc: joel, Networking, Linux Kernel Mailing List, David Miller, kuznet, yoshfuji On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 14:34, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 08:59:25AM +0100, Anders Roxell wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm seeing the following warning when I'm booting an arm64 allmodconfig > > kernel [1] on linux-next tag next-20191108, is this anything you've seen > > before ? > > > > > > The code seems to have introduced that is f0ad0860d01e ("ipv4: ipmr: > > support multiple tables") in 2010 and the warning was added reacently > > 28875945ba98 ("rcu: Add support for consolidated-RCU reader checking"). > > > > > > [ 32.496021][ T1] ============================= > > [ 32.497616][ T1] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > > [ 32.499614][ T1] 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2 Not tainted > > [ 32.502018][ T1] ----------------------------- > > [ 32.503976][ T1] net/ipv4/ipmr.c:136 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > > [ 32.506746][ T1] > > [ 32.506746][ T1] other info that might help us debug this: > > [ 32.506746][ T1] > > [ 32.509794][ T1] > > [ 32.509794][ T1] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 > > [ 32.512661][ T1] 1 lock held by swapper/0/1: > > [ 32.514169][ T1] #0: ffffa000150dd678 (pernet_ops_rwsem){+.+.}, at: register_pernet_subsys+0x24/0x50 > > [ 32.517621][ T1] > > [ 32.517621][ T1] stack backtrace: > > [ 32.519930][ T1] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.4.0-rc6-next-20191108-00003-gf74bac957b5c-dirty #2 > > [ 32.523063][ T1] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT) > > [ 32.524787][ T1] Call trace: > > [ 32.525946][ T1] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x2d0 > > [ 32.527433][ T1] show_stack+0x20/0x30 > > [ 32.528811][ T1] dump_stack+0x204/0x2ac > > [ 32.530258][ T1] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xf4/0x108 > > [ 32.531993][ T1] ipmr_get_table+0xc8/0x170 > > So this one is invoking ipmr_for_each_table(), which in turn invokes > list_for_each_entry_rcu(), which really does want to be in an > RCU read-side critical section. (But you can pass it an optional > additional lockdep expressions. > > > [ 32.533496][ T1] ipmr_new_table+0x48/0xa0 > > And this does look like update-side code... > > > [ 32.535002][ T1] ipmr_net_init+0xe8/0x258 > > And this one is marked with "__net_init", which turns out to be __init. > So this is being invoked during early boot (see inet_init() below). > Or with RTNL held when invoked at runtime. So, can we make a lockdep > expression for this combination? > > The RTNL part is easy, something like this in include/linux/rtnetlink.h: > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING > extern int lockdep_rtnl_is_held(void); > #else > #define lockdep_rtnl_is_held() 1 > #endif > > And in net/core/rtnetlink.c: > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING > int lockdep_rtnl_is_held(void) > { > return lockdep_is_held(&rtnl_mutex); > } > #endif > > > [ 32.536465][ T1] ops_init+0x280/0x2d8 > > [ 32.537876][ T1] register_pernet_operations+0x210/0x420 > > [ 32.539707][ T1] register_pernet_subsys+0x30/0x50 > > [ 32.541372][ T1] ip_mr_init+0x54/0x180 > > [ 32.542785][ T1] inet_init+0x25c/0x3e8 > > And this is an fs_initcall(). This is late enough during boot that > RTNL could conceivably be held, but I don't see evidence of that. > One approach would be to hold RTNL across this initialization code. > > So the other approach would be to have a global variable in net/ipv4/ipmr.c > whose definition depends on whether lockdep is enabled: > > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING > int ip_mr_initialized; > void ip_mr_now_initialized(void) { ip_mr_initialized = 1; } > #else > const int ip_mr_initialized = 1; > void ip_mr_now_initialized(void) { } > #endif > > Then at the end of ip_mr_init(): > > ip_mr_now_initialized(); > > And finally change the CONFIG_IP_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES definition > of ipmr_for_each_table() to be something like: > > #define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \ > list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \ > lockdep_rtnl_is_held() || !ip_mr_initialized) > > > [ 32.544186][ T1] do_one_initcall+0x4c0/0xad8 > > [ 32.545757][ T1] kernel_init_freeable+0x3e0/0x500 > > [ 32.547443][ T1] kernel_init+0x14/0x1f0 > > [ 32.548875][ T1] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > Does that work for you? Yes, that made the "suspicious RCU usage" warning go away. Cheers, Anders ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-11-13 9:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-11-11 7:59 next-20191108: qemu arm64: WARNING: suspicious RCU usage Anders Roxell 2019-11-11 13:34 ` Paul E. McKenney 2019-11-13 9:11 ` Anders Roxell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox