lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: kmemleak: illegal RCU use assertion error
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:09:11AM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> commit e5601400081651060a59bd1f45f2821bb8e97f95
> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
> Date: Sat Jan 7 11:03:57 2012 -0800
>
> rcu: Simplify offline processing
>
> Move ->qsmaskinit and blkd_tasks[] manipulation to the CPU_DYING
> notifier. This simplifies the code by eliminating a potential
> deadlock and by reducing the responsibilities of force_quiescent_state().
> Also rename functions to make their connection to the CPU-hotplug
> stages explicit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
>
> introduced WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id())); to __call_rcu()
> function, Paul also added cpu_offline checks to other routines (e.g. callbacks)
> in later commits. It happens that kmemleak() triggers one of them.
>
> During cpu core offline, kfree()->kmemleak_free()->put_object()-->__call_rcu() chain
> for struct intel_shared_regs * is executed when no struct users left on this core --
> all CPUs are dead or dying.
>
>
> [ 4703.342462] CPU 3 is now offline
> [ 4705.588116] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [ 4705.588129] WARNING: at kernel/rcutree.c:1823 __call_rcu+0x9d/0x1d2()
> [..]
> [ 4705.588196] Call Trace:
> [ 4705.588207] [<ffffffff81059a00>] ? synchronize_srcu+0x6/0x17
> [ 4705.588215] [<ffffffff8103364e>] warn_slowpath_common+0x83/0x9c
> [ 4705.588223] [<ffffffff8111e627>] ? get_object+0x31/0x31
> [ 4705.588229] [<ffffffff81033681>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c
> [ 4705.588235] [<ffffffff810af770>] __call_rcu+0x9d/0x1d2
> [ 4705.588243] [<ffffffff81013f52>] ? intel_pmu_cpu_dying+0x3b/0x5d
> [ 4705.588249] [<ffffffff810af8f1>] call_rcu_sched+0x17/0x19
> [ 4705.588255] [<ffffffff8111eb7e>] put_object+0x47/0x4b
> [ 4705.588261] [<ffffffff8111ed8b>] delete_object_full+0x2a/0x2e
> [ 4705.588269] [<ffffffff81491dc8>] kmemleak_free+0x26/0x45
> [ 4705.588274] [<ffffffff8111691f>] kfree+0x130/0x221
> [ 4705.588280] [<ffffffff81013f52>] intel_pmu_cpu_dying+0x3b/0x5d
> [ 4705.588287] [<ffffffff8149cb83>] x86_pmu_notifier+0xaf/0xb9
> [ 4705.588296] [<ffffffff814b0e9d>] notifier_call_chain+0xac/0xd9
> [ 4705.588303] [<ffffffff81059c9e>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0xe/0x10
> [ 4705.588309] [<ffffffff810354ec>] __cpu_notify+0x20/0x37
> [ 4705.588314] [<ffffffff81035516>] cpu_notify+0x13/0x15
> [ 4705.588320] [<ffffffff81490fab>] take_cpu_down+0x28/0x2e
> [ 4705.588326] [<ffffffff8109ef7f>] stop_machine_cpu_stop+0x96/0xf1
> [ 4705.588332] [<ffffffff8109ece3>] cpu_stopper_thread+0xe3/0x183
> [ 4705.588338] [<ffffffff8109eee9>] ? queue_stop_cpus_work+0xd0/0xd0
> [ 4705.588344] [<ffffffff814ad382>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x47/0x65
> [ 4705.588353] [<ffffffff81087d0d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x119/0x175
> [ 4705.588358] [<ffffffff81087d76>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
> [ 4705.588364] [<ffffffff8109ec00>] ? cpu_stop_signal_done+0x2c/0x2c
> [ 4705.588370] [<ffffffff810544a9>] kthread+0x8b/0x93
> [ 4705.588378] [<ffffffff814b5f34>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> [ 4705.588385] [<ffffffff814ad7f0>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13
> [ 4705.588391] [<ffffffff8105441e>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x5a/0x5a
> [ 4705.588397] [<ffffffff814b5f30>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13
> [ 4705.588400] ---[ end trace 720328982e35a713 ]---
> [ 4705.588507] CPU 2 is now offline
>
>
> My first solution was to return from delete_object() if object deallocation
> performed on cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()), marking object with special
> flag, say OBJECT_ORPHAN. And issue real object_delete() during scan (for example)
> when we see OBJECT_ORPHAN object.
> That, however, requires to handle special case when cpu core offlined
> for small period of time, leading to object insertion error in
> create_object(), which either may be handled in 2 possible ways (assuming
> that lookup_object() returned OBJECT_ORPHAN):
> #1 delete orphaned object and retry with insertion (*)
> #2 re-set existing orphan object
>
>
> (*) performing delete_object() from within create_object() requires releasing
> of held kmemleak and object locks, which is racy with other create_object() and
> any possible scan() activities.
>
> Yet I'm not exactly sure that option #2 is the correct one.
> (I've kind of a patch [not properly tested, etc.] for #2 option).

Alternatively, I can make RCU tolerate __call_rcu() from late in the
CPU_DYING notifiers without too much trouble.

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-02 15:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans