Re: [PATCH] locking/semaphore: Use wake_q to wake up processes outside lock critical section

[Waiman Long]

On 2/11/22 05:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:04:59PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 2/10/22 05:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I am sorry that I might have stripped out too much for the lockdep splat to
> > make it understandable. Below is the full lockdep splat:
> Right, so please just transcribe the relevant bits instead of including
> this massive splat. It really isn't too complicated.
>
> That can be summarized as:
>
> 	0:		1:		2:
> 	pi_lock		rq->lock	console_sem
> 	  rq->lock	  console_sem	  pi_lock
>
> Which is *much* shorter and *much* easier to read.
OK, got it. However, I thought the circular dependency has been 
explained by that part of the lockdep splat:

[ 9776.459905] Chain exists of:
[ 9776.459906]   (console_sem).lock --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock

[ 9776.459911]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[ 9776.459913]        CPU0                    CPU1
[ 9776.459914]        ----                    ----
[ 9776.459914]   lock(&rq->__lock);
[ 9776.459917] 				lock(&p->pi_lock);
[ 9776.459919] 				lock(&rq->__lock);
[ 9776.459921]   lock((console_sem).lock);

This should convey the same information. Though I think I need to describe where those locking sequence happen.

> > > More concerning, that ordering is invalid to begin with, so the above
> > > seems like a very poor justification for this patch.
> > Which lock ordering are you considered invalid?
> 1: above. You cannot take a semaphore inside a (raw) spinlock.
You may have been confused by the name "console_sem". A semaphore is 
basically a count protected by a raw spinlock. So console_sem.lock is 
actually a raw spinlock. It is perfectly legal to take a raw spinlock 
after holding another raw spinlock.
> > The stack trace included in the patch description show the
> > (console_sem).lock --> &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock sequence because of the
> > wake_up_process() call while holding the console_sem.lock.
> >
> > The reverse &rq->__lock lock may happen when a printk() statement is called
> > while holding the rq lock.
> >
> > In this case, the printk() is triggered by a SCHED_WARN_ON() statement in
> > update_rq_clock() which don't call printk_deferred and so won't have
> > LOGLEVEL_SCHED set. I guess there is alternative way to work around this
> > issue, but moving the process wakeup out from the semaphore spinlock will
> > solve this problem in case there are other corner cases like that.
> >
> > I will update the patch description to include this additional information.
> The right solution is to burn printk_deferred at the stake and most of
> printk along with it (they're working on it).
>
> Hitting that WARN is the real problem, the rest is collateral damage and
> I'm really not interested in fixing that.

Yes, hitting the WARN is the cause of this lockdep splat. In the v2 
patch, I list the alternatives as either banning WARN inside rq lock or 
make a WARN that work with rq lock if we are not going to fix the 
semaphore. So what is your recommendation about handling that?

Cheers,
Longman