On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:17:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU
>
> Jiri managed to trigger:
>
> [] ======================================================
> [] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [] 3.10.0+ #228 Tainted: G W
> [] -------------------------------------------------------
> [] p/6613 is trying to acquire lock:
> [] (rcu_node_0){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff810ca797>]
> rcu_read_unlock_special+0xa7/0x250
> []
> [] but task is already holding lock:
> [] (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810f2879>]
> perf_lock_task_context+0xd9/0x2c0
> []
> [] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> []
> [] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> []
> [] -> #4 (&ctx->lock){-.-...}:
> [] -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
> [] -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
> [] -> #1 (&rnp->nocb_gp_wq[1]){......}:
> [] -> #0 (rcu_node_0){..-...}:
>
> Paul was quick to explain that due to preemptible RCU we cannot call
> rcu_read_unlock() while holding scheduler (or nested) locks when part of the
> read side critical section was preemptible.
>
> Therefore solve it by making the entire RCU read side non-preemptible.
>
> Also pull out the retry from under the non-preempt to play nice with RT.
>
> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -947,8 +947,18 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc
> {
> struct perf_event_context *ctx;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> retry:
> + /*
> + * One of the few rules of preemptible RCU is that one cannot do
> + * rcu_read_unlock() while holding a scheduler (or nested) lock when
> + * part of the read side critical section was preemptible -- see
> + * rcu_read_unlock_special().
> + *
> + * Since ctx->lock nests under rq->lock we must ensure the entire read
> + * side critical section is non-preemptible.
> + */
> + preempt_disable();
> + rcu_read_lock();
> ctx = rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn]);
> if (ctx) {
> /*
> @@ -964,6 +974,8 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, *flags);
> if (ctx != rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn])) {
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, *flags);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + preempt_enable();
> goto retry;
> }
>
> @@ -973,6 +985,7 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc
> }
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
> + preempt_enable();
> return ctx;
> }
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
