On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 04:04:05PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On 3/18/2026 2:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 08:51:16AM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 03:43:05PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > >> [..] > >>>>>> way that vanilla RCU's call_rcu_core() function takes an early exit if > >>>>>> interrupts are disabled. Of course, vanilla RCU can rely on things > >>>>>> like > >>>>>> the scheduling-clock interrupt to start any needed grace periods [1], > >>>>>> but SRCU will instead need to manually defer this work, perhaps using > >>>>>> workqueues or IRQ work. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In addition, rcutorture needs to be upgraded to sometimes invoke > >>>>>> ->call() with the scheduler pi lock held, but this change is not fixing > >>>>>> a regression, so could be deferred. (There is already code in > >>>>>> rcutorture > >>>>>> that invokes the readers while holding a scheduler pi lock.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given that RCU for this week through the end of March belongs to you > >>>>>> guys, > >>>>>> if one of you can get this done by end of day Thursday, London time, > >>>>>> very good! Otherwise, I can put something together. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please let me know! > >>>>> > >>>>> Given that the current locking does allow it and lockdep should have > >>>>> complained, I am curious if we could rule that out ;) > >>> > >>> Your patch just s/spinlock_t/raw_spinlock_t so we get the locking/ > >>> nesting right. The wakeup problem remains, right? > >>> But looking at the code, there is just srcu_funnel_gp_start(). If its > >>> srcu_schedule_cbs_sdp() / queue_delayed_work() usage is always delayed > >>> then there will be always a timer and never a direct wake up of the > >>> worker. Wouldn't that work? > >> > >> Late to the party, so just make sure I understand the problem. The > >> problem is the wakeup in call_srcu() when it's called with scheduler > >> lock held, right? If so I think the current code works as what you > >> already explain, we defer the wakeup into a workqueue. > > > > The issue is that call_rcu_tasks() (which is call_srcu() now) is > > also invoked with a scheduler pi/rq lock held, which results in a > > deadlock cycle. So the srcu_gp_start_if_needed() function's call to > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave_sdp_contention() must be deferred to the workqueue > > handler, not just the wake-up. And that in turn means that the callback > > point also needs to be passed to this handler. > > > > See this email thread: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/cap01t75ekpvw+95nqnwg9p-1+kzvzojpn0nlat+28sf1b9w...@mail.gmail.com/ > > > >> (but Paul, we are not talking about calling call_srcu(), that requires > >> some more work to get it work) > > > > Agreed, splitting srcu_gp_start_if_needed() and using a workqueue if > > interrupts were already disabled on entry. Otherwise, directly invoking > > the split-out portion of srcu_gp_start_if_needed(). > > > > But we might be talking past each other. > > > > Ah so it is an ABBA deadlock, not a ABA self-deadlock. I guess this is a > different issue, from the NMI issue? It is more of an issue of calling > call_srcu API with scheduler locks held. > > Something like below I think: > > CPU A (BPF tracepoint) CPU B (concurrent call_srcu) > ---------------------------- ------------------------------------ > [1] holds &rq->__lock > [2] > -> call_srcu > -> srcu_gp_start_if_needed > -> srcu_funnel_gp_start > -> spin_lock_irqsave_ssp_content... > -> holds srcu locks > > [4] calls call_rcu_tasks_trace() [5] srcu_funnel_gp_start (cont..) > -> queue_delayed_work > -> call_srcu() -> __queue_work() > -> srcu_gp_start_if_needed() -> wake_up_worker() > -> srcu_funnel_gp_start() -> try_to_wake_up() > -> spin_lock_irqsave_ssp_contention() [6] WANTS rq->__lock > -> WANTS srcu locks
I see, we can also have a self deadlock even without CPU B, when CPU A is going to try_to_wake_up() the a worker on the same CPU. An interesting observation is that the deadlock can be avoided in queue_delayed_work() uses a non-zero delay, that means a timer will be armed instead of acquiring the rq lock. (But I guess BPF also wants to run with timer base lock held, right? ;-) ;-) ;-)). /me going to check Paul's second fix at rcu/dev. Regards, Boqun > > If I understand this, this looks like an issue that can happen independent > of the conversion of the spin locks. > > thanks, > > -- > Joel Fernandes
