Re: [RFC] Deadlock via recursive wakeup via RCU with threadirqs

[Joel Fernandes]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:22:16AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:45:45PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2019-06-28 10:30:11 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > I believe the .blocked field remains set even though we are not any more in a
> > > > reader section because of deferred processing of the blocked lists that you
> > > > mentioned yesterday.
> > > 
> > > That can indeed happen.  However, in current -rcu, that would mean
> > > that .deferred_qs is also set, which (if in_irq()) would prevent
> > > the raise_softirq_irqsoff() from being invoked.  Which was why I was
> > > asking the questions about whether in_irq() returns true within threaded
> > > interrupts yesterday.  If it does, I need to find if there is some way
> > > of determining whether rcu_read_unlock_special() is being called from
> > > a threaded interrupt in order to suppress the call to raise_softirq()
> > > in that case.
> > 
> > Please not that:
> > | void irq_exit(void)
> > | {
> > |â
> > in_irq() returns true
> > |         preempt_count_sub(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);
> > in_irq() returns false
> > |         if (!in_interrupt() && local_softirq_pending())
> > |                 invoke_softirq();
> > 
> > -> invoke_softirq() does
> > |        if (!force_irqthreads) {
> > |                 __do_softirq();
> > |         } else {
> > |                 wakeup_softirqd();
> > |         }
> > 
> > so for `force_irqthreads' rcu_read_unlock_special() within
> > wakeup_softirqd() will see false.
> 
> OK, fair point.  How about the following instead, again on -rcu?
> 
> Here is the rationale for the new version of the "if" statement:
> 
> 1.	irqs_were_disabled:  If interrupts are enabled, we should
> 	instead let the upcoming irq_enable()/local_bh_enable()
> 	do the rescheduling for us.
> 2.	use_softirq: If we aren't using softirq, then
> 	raise_softirq_irqoff() will be unhelpful.
> 3a.	in_interrupt(): If this returns true, the subsequent
> 	call to raise_softirq_irqoff() is guaranteed not to
> 	do a wakeup, so that call will be both very cheap and
> 	quite safe.
> 3b.	Otherwise, if !in_interrupt(), if exp (an expedited RCU grace
> 	period is being blocked), then incurring wakeup overhead
> 	is worthwhile, and if also !.deferred_qs then scheduler locks
> 	cannot be held so the wakeup will be safe.
> 
> Does that make more sense?

This makes a lot of sense. It would be nice to stick these comments on top of
rcu_read_unlock_special() for future reference.

thanks,

 - Joel


> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> index 82c925df1d92..83333cfe8707 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h
> @@ -624,8 +624,9 @@ static void rcu_read_unlock_special(struct task_struct *t)
>  		      (rdp->grpmask & rnp->expmask) ||
>  		      tick_nohz_full_cpu(rdp->cpu);
>  		// Need to defer quiescent state until everything is enabled.
> -		if ((exp || in_irq()) && irqs_were_disabled && use_softirq &&
> -		    (in_irq() || !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs)) {
> +		if (irqs_were_disabled && use_softirq &&
> +		    (in_interrupt() ||
> +		     (exp && !t->rcu_read_unlock_special.b.deferred_qs))) {
>  			// Using softirq, safe to awaken, and we get
>  			// no help from enabling irqs, unlike bh/preempt.
>  			raise_softirq_irqoff(RCU_SOFTIRQ);
>