Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:35:43 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 3.10.70-rt75-rc2 stable review patch.
> If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> 
> ------------------
> 

Here's the missing change log for this revert. I'll go back and add it
in:


An issue arisen that if a rt_mutex (spin_lock converted to a mutex
in PREEMPT_RT) is taken in hard interrupt context, it could cause
a false deadlock detection and trigger a BUG_ON() from the return
value of task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() in rt_spin_lock_slowlock().

The problem is this:

    CPU0			CPU1
    ----			----
  spin_lock(A)
				spin_lock(A)
			[ blocks, but spins as owner on
			  CPU 0 is running ]

				<interrupt>
					spin_trylock(B)
					[ succeeds ]

  spin_lock(B)
  <blocks>

Now the deadlock detection triggers and follows the locking:

  Task X (on CPU0) blocked on spinlock B owned by task Y on
  CPU1 (via the interrupt taking it with a try lock)

  The owner of B (Y) is blocked on spin_lock A (still spinning)
  A is owned by task X (self). DEADLOCK detected! BUG_ON triggered.

This was caused by the code to try to not raise softirq unconditionally
to allow NO_HZ_FULL to work. Unfortunately, reverting that patch causes
NO_HZ_FULL to break again, but that's still better than triggering
a BUG_ON().



-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/