Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:32:56 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 3.1 |
| |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:09:19PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > (Let's cc Peter and Paul Turner for this perf cgroup issue.) > > > Thank you for the analysis. Does the following patch fix this problem? > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > fs: Add RCU protection in set_task_comm() > > > > Running "perf stat true" results in the following RCU-lockdep splat: > > > > =============================== > > [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] > > ------------------------------- > > include/linux/cgroup.h:548 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage! > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > > 1 lock held by true/655: > > #0: (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<810d1bd7>] prepare_bprm_creds+0x27/0x70 > > > > stack backtrace: > > Pid: 655, comm: true Not tainted 3.1.0-tip-01868-g1271bd2-dirty #161079 > > Call Trace: > > [<81abe239>] ? printk+0x18/0x1a > > [<81064920>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xc0/0xd0 > > [<8108aa02>] perf_event_enable_on_exec+0x1d2/0x1e0 > > [<81063764>] ? __lock_release+0x54/0xb0 > > [<8108cca8>] perf_event_comm+0x18/0x60 > > [<810d1abd>] ? set_task_comm+0x5d/0x80 > > [<81af622d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1d/0x40 > > [<810d1ac4>] set_task_comm+0x64/0x80 > > [<810d25fd>] setup_new_exec+0xbd/0x1d0 > > [<810d1b61>] ? flush_old_exec+0x81/0xa0 > > [<8110753e>] load_elf_binary+0x28e/0xa00 > > [<810d2101>] ? search_binary_handler+0xd1/0x1d0 > > [<81063764>] ? __lock_release+0x54/0xb0 > > [<811072b0>] ? load_elf_library+0x260/0x260 > > [<810d2108>] search_binary_handler+0xd8/0x1d0 > > [<810d2060>] ? search_binary_handler+0x30/0x1d0 > > [<810d242f>] do_execve_common+0x22f/0x2a0 > > [<810d24b2>] do_execve+0x12/0x20 > > [<81009592>] sys_execve+0x32/0x70 > > [<81af7752>] ptregs_execve+0x12/0x20 > > [<81af76d4>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36 > > > > Li Zefan noted that this is due to set_task_comm() dropping the task > > lock before invoking perf_event_comm(), which could in fact result in > > the task being freed up before perf_event_comm() completed tracing in > > the case where one task invokes set_task_comm() on another task -- which > > actually does occur via comm_write(), which can be invoked via /proc. > > > > This is not true. The caller should ensure @tsk is valid during > set_task_comm(). > > The warning comes from perf_cgroup_from_task(). We can trigger this warning > in some other cases where perf cgroup is used, for example:
I must defer to your greater knowledge of this situation. What patch would you propose?
Thanx, Paul
> # mount -t cgroup -o perf_event xxx /mnt > # ./perf record -a -e 'sched:*' -G / true > > [ 171.603171] =============================== > [ 171.603173] [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] > [ 171.603175] ------------------------------- > [ 171.603178] include/linux/cgroup.h:548 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage! > [ 171.603180] > [ 171.603181] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 171.603182] > [ 171.603184] > [ 171.603185] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > [ 171.603188] 2 locks held by perf/2899: > [ 171.603190] #0: (&cpuctx_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c04b2fe7>] sys_perf_event_open+0x4ed/0x62a > [ 171.603201] #1: (&cpuctx_lock){......}, at: [<c04ac4bc>] perf_ctx_lock+0xe/0x1d > [ 171.603210] > [ 171.603211] stack backtrace: > [ 171.603214] Pid: 2899, comm: perf Not tainted 3.1.0+ #12 > [ 171.603216] Call Trace: > [ 171.603222] [<c07e7234>] ? printk+0x25/0x29 > [ 171.603227] [<c046279d>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x90/0x9b > [ 171.603232] [<c04ac688>] perf_cgroup_from_task+0x5e/0x64 > [ 171.603236] [<c04adfe7>] update_cgrp_time_from_event.clone.18+0x16/0x25 > [ 171.603240] [<c04b01a1>] __perf_install_in_context+0xa0/0xcf > [ 171.603244] [<c04ac355>] ? pmu_dev_release+0xa/0xa > [ 171.603248] [<c04ac386>] remote_function+0x31/0x37 > [ 171.603253] [<c0468aaa>] smp_call_function_single+0x7d/0xf5 > [ 171.603257] [<c04ac41d>] cpu_function_call+0x29/0x2e > [ 171.603261] [<c04b0101>] ? perf_pm_suspend_cpu+0x9f/0x9f > [ 171.603264] [<c04ae85b>] perf_install_in_context+0x53/0x9f > [ 171.603268] [<c04b3033>] sys_perf_event_open+0x539/0x62a > [ 171.603273] [<c04566f5>] ? up_read+0x1b/0x2e > [ 171.603277] [<c07ec856>] ? do_page_fault+0x2e6/0x314 > [ 171.603283] [<c07ef2df>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x38 > > > This commit fixes this problem by entering an RCU read-side critical > > section before acquiring the task lock and exiting this critical section > > after perf_event_comm() returns. > > > > Reported-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c > > index 25dcbe5..fb928d3 100644 > > --- a/fs/exec.c > > +++ b/fs/exec.c > > @@ -1056,6 +1056,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_task_comm); > > > > void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf) > > { > > + rcu_read_lock(); /* protect task pointer through tracing. */ > > task_lock(tsk); > > > > /* > > @@ -1069,6 +1070,7 @@ void set_task_comm(struct task_struct *tsk, char *buf) > > strlcpy(tsk->comm, buf, sizeof(tsk->comm)); > > task_unlock(tsk); > > perf_event_comm(tsk); > > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > } > > > > int flush_old_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) > > >
| |