lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 tip/core/rcu 40/40] rcu: Make non-preemptive schedule be Tasks RCU quiescent state
From
Date
On 29/09/2017 11:30, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:05:14PM +0000, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [...]
>>> __schedule+0x201/0x2240 kernel/sched/core.c:3292
>>> schedule+0x113/0x460 kernel/sched/core.c:3421
>>> kvm_async_pf_task_wait+0x43f/0x940 arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c:158
>>
>> It is kvm_async_pf_task_wait() that calls schedule(), but it carefully
>> sets state to make that legal. Except...
>>
>>> do_async_page_fault+0x72/0x90 arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c:271
>>> async_page_fault+0x22/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:1069
>>> RIP: 0010:format_decode+0x240/0x830 lib/vsprintf.c:1996
>>> RSP: 0018:ffff88003b2df520 EFLAGS: 00010283
>>> RAX: 000000000000003f RBX: ffffffffb5d1e141 RCX: ffff88003b2df670
>>> RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: dffffc0000000000 RDI: ffffffffb5d1e140
>>> RBP: ffff88003b2df560 R08: dffffc0000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
>>> R10: ffff88003b2df718 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff88003b2df5d8
>>> R13: 0000000000000064 R14: ffffffffb5d1e140 R15: 0000000000000000
>>> vsnprintf+0x173/0x1700 lib/vsprintf.c:2136
>>
>> We took a page fault in vsnprintf() while doing link_path_walk(),
>> which looks to be within an RCU read-side critical section.
>>
>> Maybe the page fault confused lockdep?
>>
>> Sigh. It is going to be a real pain if all printk()s need to be
>> outside of RCU read-side critical sections due to the possibility of
>> page faults...
>>
>
> Does this mean whenever we get a page fault in a RCU read-side critical
> section, we may hit this?
>
> Could we simply avoid to schedule() in kvm_async_pf_task_wait() if the
> fault process is in a RCU read-side critical section as follow?
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index aa60a08b65b1..291ea13b23d2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ void kvm_async_pf_task_wait(u32 token)
>
> n.token = token;
> n.cpu = smp_processor_id();
> - n.halted = is_idle_task(current) || preempt_count() > 1;
> + n.halted = is_idle_task(current) || preempt_count() > 1 || rcu_preempt_depth();
> init_swait_queue_head(&n.wq);
> hlist_add_head(&n.link, &b->list);
> raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
>
> (Add KVM folks and list Cced)

Yes, that would work. Mind to send it as a proper patch?

Thanks,

Paolo

> Regards,
> Boqun
>
>> Thanx, Paul
> [...]
>


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-29 12:01    [W:0.205 / U:5.084 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site