Re: Buggy IPI and MTRR code on low memory

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jan 28 2009 - 16:13:24 EST


On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:38:14 -0500 (EST)
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> While developing the RT git tree I came across this deadlock.
>
> To avoid touching the memory allocator in smp_call_function_many I forced
> the stack use case, the path that would be taken if data fails to
> allocate.
>
> Here's the current code in kernel/smp.c:
>
> void smp_call_function_many(const struct cpumask *mask,
> void (*func)(void *), void *info,
> bool wait)
> {
> struct call_function_data *data;
> [...]
> data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data) + cpumask_size(), GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (unlikely(!data)) {
> /* Slow path. */
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> if (cpu == smp_processor_id())
> continue;
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mask))
> smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info,
> wait);
> }
> return;
> }
> [...]
>
> int smp_call_function_single(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void
> *info,
> int wait)
> {
> struct call_single_data d;
> [...]
> if (!wait) {
> data = kmalloc(sizeof(*data), GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (data)
> data->flags = CSD_FLAG_ALLOC;
> }
> if (!data) {
> data = &d;
> data->flags = CSD_FLAG_WAIT;
> }
>
> Note that if data failed to allocate, we force the wait state.
>
>
> This immediately caused a deadlock with the mtrr code:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/main.c:
>
> static void set_mtrr(unsigned int reg, unsigned long base,
> unsigned long size, mtrr_type type)
> {
> struct set_mtrr_data data;
> [...]
> /* Start the ball rolling on other CPUs */
> if (smp_call_function(ipi_handler, &data, 0) != 0)
> panic("mtrr: timed out waiting for other CPUs\n");
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
>
> while(atomic_read(&data.count))
> cpu_relax();
>
> /* ok, reset count and toggle gate */
> atomic_set(&data.count, num_booting_cpus() - 1);
> smp_wmb();
> atomic_set(&data.gate,1);
>
> [...]
>
> static void ipi_handler(void *info)
> /* [SUMMARY] Synchronisation handler. Executed by "other" CPUs.
> [RETURNS] Nothing.
> */
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> struct set_mtrr_data *data = info;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> local_irq_save(flags);
>
> atomic_dec(&data->count);
> while(!atomic_read(&data->gate))
> cpu_relax();
>
>
> The problem is that if we use the stack, then we must wait for the
> function to finish. But in the mtrr code, the called functions are waiting
> for the caller to do something after the smp_call_function. Thus we
> deadlock! This mtrr code seems to have been there for a while. At least
> longer than the git history.

My initial reaction is that the mtrr code is being stupid, but I guess
that strengthening the smp_call_function() stuff is good, and we _do_
have this "wait=0" contract.

> To get around this, I did the following hack. Now this may be good
> enough to handle the case. I'm posting it for comments.
>
> The patch creates another flag called CSD_FLAG_RELEASE. If we fail
> to alloc the data and the wait bit is not set, we still use the stack
> but we also set this flag instead of the wait flag. The receiving IPI
> will copy the data locally, and if this flag is set, it will clear it. The
> caller, after sending the IPI, will wait on this flag to be cleared.
>
> The difference between this and the wait bit is that the release bit is
> just a way to let the callee tell the caller that it copied the data and
> is continuing. The data can be released with no worries. This prevents the
> deadlock because the caller can continue without waiting for the functions
> to be called.
>
> I tested this patch by forcing the data to be null:
>
> data = NULL; // kmalloc(...);
>
> Also, when forcing data to be NULL on the latest git tree, without
> applying the patch, I hit a deadlock in testing of the NMI watchdog. This
> means there may be other areas in the kernel that think smp_call_function,
> without the wait bit set, expects that function not to ever wait.

Concern 1: do all architectures actually call
generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt()? I don't think they
_have_ to at present, and if they don't, we now have inconsistent
behaviour between architectures.

Concern 2: not all architectures set CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS=y.
Those which do not set CONFIG_USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS might need to
have similar changes made so that the behaviour remains consistent
across architectures.

Thought: do we need to do the kmalloc at all? Perhaps we can instead
use a statically allocated per-cpu call_single_data local to
kernel/smp.c? It would need a spinlock or something to protect it...


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/