lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
From
Date
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 05:42 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 01:29:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 07:05 -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] -> #1 (rcu_node_level_0){..-...}:
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8108b7e5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x140
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8157808b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810ba797>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x197/0x2d0
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8103f2f5>] select_task_rq_fair+0x585/0xa80
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8104633b>] try_to_wake_up+0x17b/0x360
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff81046575>] wake_up_process+0x15/0x20
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810528f4>] irq_exit+0xb4/0x100
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff8158197e>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6e/0x99
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff81580c53>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff810ba6e9>] __rcu_read_unlock+0xe9/0x2d0
> > > Jul 14 23:21:18 grover kernel: [ 920.659426] [<ffffffff814c20d4>] sock_def_readable+0x94/0xc0
> >
> > Ed, are you perchance running with force_irqthreads?
> >
> > Paul, what appears to be happening here is that some rcu_read_unlock()
> > gets interrupted, possibly before calling rcu_read_unlock_special(),
> > possibly not if the interrupt is itself the timer interrupt.
> >
> > Supposing ->rcu_read_unlock_special is set before, any wakeup happening
> > from an interrupt hitting __rcu_read_unlock():
> >
> > void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> > {
> > struct task_struct *t = current;
> >
> > barrier(); /* needed if we ever invoke rcu_read_unlock in rcutree.c */
> > --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting;
> > barrier(); /* decrement before load of ->rcu_read_unlock_special */
> > if (t->rcu_read_lock_nesting == 0 &&
> > unlikely(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_unlock_special)))
> > rcu_read_unlock_special(t);
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(ACCESS_ONCE(t->rcu_read_lock_nesting) < 0);
> > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING */
> > }
> >
> > After --t->rcu_read_lock_nesting, but before calling
> > rcu_read_unlock_special(), will trigger this lock inversion.
> >
> > The alternative case, ->rcu_read_unlock_special is not set yet, it can
> > be set if the interrupt hitting in that same spot above, is the timer
> > interrupt, and the wakeup happens either from the softirq ran from the
> > hard IRQ tail, or as I suspect here happens, the wakeup of ksoftirqd/#.

OK, so the latter case cannot happen (rcu_preempt_check_callbacks only
sets NEED_QS when rcu_read_lock_nesting), we need two interrupts for
this to happen.

rcu_read_lock()

<IRQ>
|= RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS

rcu_read_unlock()
__rcu_read_unlock()
--rcu_read_lock_nesting;
<IRQ>
ttwu()
rcu_read_lock()
rcu_read_unlock()
rcu_read_unlock_special()
*BANG*
rcu_read_unlock_special()




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-15 15:11    [W:0.090 / U:1.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site