Re: Query regarding synchronize_sched_expedited and resched_cpu

From: Paul E. McKenney
Date: Mon Sep 18 2017 - 22:27:11 EST

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:23:01PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:53:11 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:55:27AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:29:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:24:12 -0700
> > > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > As soon as I work through the backlog of lockdep complaints that
> > > > > appeared in the last merge window... :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > sparse_irq_lock, I am looking at you!!! ;-)
> > > >
> > > > I just hit one too, and decided to write a patch to show a chain of 3
> > > > when applicable.
> > > >
> > > > For example:
> > > >
> > > > Chain exists of:
> > > > cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> smpboot_threads_lock --> (complete)&self->parked
> > > >
> > > > Possible unsafe locking scenario by crosslock:
> > > >
> > > > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> > > > ---- ---- ----
> > > > lock(smpboot_threads_lock);
> > > > lock((complete)&self->parked);
> > > > lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> > > > lock(smpboot_threads_lock);
> > > > lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> > > > unlock((complete)&self->parked);
> > > >
> > > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > >
> > > Nice!!!
>
> Note, the above lockdep splat does discover a bug.

Fair enough, but I unfortunately have several other much more bizarre
bugs stacked up and so I am not volunteering to fix this one.

> > > My next step is reverting 12ac1d0f6c3e ("genirq: Make sparse_irq_lock
> > > protect what it should protect") to see if that helps.
> >
> > No joy, but it is amazing how much nicer "git bisect" is when your
> > failure happens deterministically within 35 seconds. ;-)
> >
> > The bisection converged to the range starting with 7a46ec0e2f48
> > ("locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow
> > protection") and ending with 0c2364791343 ("Merge branch 'x86/asm'
> > into locking/core"). All of these failed with an unrelated build
> > error, but there was a fix that could be merged. This flagged
> > d0541b0fa64b ("locking/lockdep: Make CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE part
> > of CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING"), which unfortunately does not revert cleanly.
> > However, the effect of a reversion can be obtained by removing the
> > selects of LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE and LOCKDEP_COMPLETE from
> > PROVE_LOCKING, which allows recent commits to complete a short
> > rcutorture test successfully.
>
> I don't think you want to remove those. It appears that lockdep now
> covers completions, and it is uncovering a lot of bugs.

Actually, I do, at least in the short term. This splat is getting in the
way of my diagnostics for the other bugs. Please note that I am -not-
arguing that mainline should change, at least not yet.

> > So, Byungchul, any enlightenment? Please see lockdep splat below.
>
> Did you discover the below by reverting lockdep patches? It doesn't
> really make sense. It looks to me to be about completions but not
> fully covering it.

No, the splat below is what I get from stock v4.14-rc1 on these
rcutorture scenarios: SRCU-P, TASKS01, TREE03, and TREE05. If you
would like to try it yourself, TASKS01 requires only two CPUs and
the others require eight.

When I suppress LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE and LOCKDEP_COMPLETE, I don't
see anything that looks like that deadlock, but it is of course quite
possible that the deadlock is very low probability -- and I did short
30-minute runs.

Thanx, Paul

> -- Steve
>
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > [ 35.310179] ======================================================
> > [ 35.310749] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > [ 35.310749] 4.13.0-rc4+ #1 Not tainted
> > [ 35.310749] ------------------------------------------------------
> > [ 35.310749] torture_onoff/766 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 35.313943] ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb905f5a6>] takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 35.313943] (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb90c5e42>] irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] -> #1 (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}:
> > [ 35.313943] __mutex_lock+0x65/0x960
> > [ 35.313943] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x20
> > [ 35.313943] irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> > [ 35.313943] irq_affinity_online_cpu+0x13/0xd0
> > [ 35.313943] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xa7/0x8b0
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] -> #0 ((complete)&st->done){+.+.}:
> > [ 35.313943] check_prev_add+0x401/0x800
> > [ 35.313943] __lock_acquire+0x1100/0x11a0
> > [ 35.313943] lock_acquire+0x9e/0x1e0
> > [ 35.313943] wait_for_completion+0x36/0x130
> > [ 35.313943] takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xa7/0x8b0
> > [ 35.313943] cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x3d/0x80
> > [ 35.313943] _cpu_down+0xbb/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943] do_cpu_down+0x39/0x50
> > [ 35.313943] cpu_down+0xb/0x10
> > [ 35.313943] torture_offline+0x75/0x140
> > [ 35.313943] torture_onoff+0x102/0x1e0
> > [ 35.313943] kthread+0x142/0x180
> > [ 35.313943] ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] CPU0 CPU1
> > [ 35.313943] ---- ----
> > [ 35.313943] lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> > [ 35.313943] lock((complete)&st->done);
> > [ 35.313943] lock(sparse_irq_lock);
> > [ 35.313943] lock((complete)&st->done);
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] 3 locks held by torture_onoff/766:
> > [ 35.313943] #0: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb9060be2>] do_cpu_down+0x22/0x50
> > [ 35.313943] #1: (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffffb90acc41>] percpu_down_write+0x21/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943] #2: (sparse_irq_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffb90c5e42>] irq_lock_sparse+0x12/0x20
> > [ 35.313943]
> > [ 35.313943] stack backtrace:
> > [ 35.313943] CPU: 7 PID: 766 Comm: torture_onoff Not tainted 4.13.0-rc4+ #1
> > [ 35.313943] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Ubuntu-1.8.2-1ubuntu1 04/01/2014
> > [ 35.313943] Call Trace:
> > [ 35.313943] dump_stack+0x67/0x97
> > [ 35.313943] print_circular_bug+0x21d/0x330
> > [ 35.313943] ? add_lock_to_list.isra.31+0xc0/0xc0
> > [ 35.313943] check_prev_add+0x401/0x800
> > [ 35.313943] ? wake_up_q+0x70/0x70
> > [ 35.313943] __lock_acquire+0x1100/0x11a0
> > [ 35.313943] ? __lock_acquire+0x1100/0x11a0
> > [ 35.313943] ? add_lock_to_list.isra.31+0xc0/0xc0
> > [ 35.313943] lock_acquire+0x9e/0x1e0
> > [ 35.313943] ? takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943] wait_for_completion+0x36/0x130
> > [ 35.313943] ? takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943] ? stop_machine_cpuslocked+0xb9/0xd0
> > [ 35.313943] ? cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x8b0/0x8b0
> > [ 35.313943] ? cpuhp_complete_idle_dead+0x10/0x10
> > [ 35.313943] takedown_cpu+0x86/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xa7/0x8b0
> > [ 35.313943] cpuhp_down_callbacks+0x3d/0x80
> > [ 35.313943] _cpu_down+0xbb/0xf0
> > [ 35.313943] do_cpu_down+0x39/0x50
> > [ 35.313943] cpu_down+0xb/0x10
> > [ 35.313943] torture_offline+0x75/0x140
> > [ 35.313943] torture_onoff+0x102/0x1e0
> > [ 35.313943] kthread+0x142/0x180
> > [ 35.313943] ? torture_kthread_stopping+0x70/0x70
> > [ 35.313943] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
> > [ 35.313943] ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
>