Re: [GIT RFC PULL rcu/urgent] Revert to fix RCU-relateddeadlock/softlockup

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri Jul 06 2012 - 05:20:21 EST



* Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello, Ingo,
>
> This series has a single revert from the ill-starred attempt to inline
> __rcu_read_lock() for preemptible RCU. Without this revert, on mainline
> kernels using CONFIG_RCU_BOOST there is a low-probability deadlock on the
> runqueue locks, but one that actually appeared in Sasha Levin's testing.
> With the revert, and with an diagnostic patch that increased probability
> of the deadlock to a MTBF of roughly 10 seconds, Sasha's tests ran for
> two days with no failure.
>
> The sequence of events leading to the deadlock is as follows:
>
> 1. A task enters an RCU read-side critical section, and is both
> preempted and subjected to RCU priority boosting.
> 2. The task starts to exit its RCU read-side critical section,
> but is preempted in __rcu_read_unlock() just after the assignment
> setting t->rcu_read_lock_nesting to INT_MIN. (The diagnostic
> patch mentioned above expands this window by ten microseconds,
> and is available in -rcu as a debug option queued for 3.7.)
> 3. The task enters the scheduler, where it acquires the corresponding
> runqueue lock, then invokes rcu_switch_from() which in turn
> invokes rcu_preempt_note_context_switch(), which in turn invokes
> rcu_read_unlock_special(), which attempts to deboost the task.
> 4. The attempt to deboost the task recursively enters the scheduler
> with a runqueue lock held, which can result in deadlock.
>
> The revert moves the point at which rcu_preempt_note_context_switch() is
> called to a point in the scheduler code before the runqueue lock is
> acquired, avoiding the deadlock.
>
> This pull is marked "RFC" because CONFIG_RCU_BOOST=y is not used much
> outside of the real-time community. I will be sending another pull
> request later today (Pacific Time) for 3.6 RCU commits, which will
> include this commit as well. Your choice. ;-)

It got introduced in this cycle so I agree with you that the fix
for the regression is justified.

> This change is available in the git repository at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/urgent
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------>
> Paul E. McKenney (1):
> Revert "rcu: Move PREEMPT_RCU preemption to switch_to() invocation"
>
> arch/um/drivers/mconsole_kern.c | 1 -
> include/linux/rcupdate.h | 1 -
> include/linux/rcutiny.h | 6 ++++++
> include/linux/sched.h | 10 ----------
> kernel/rcutree.c | 1 +
> kernel/rcutree.h | 1 +
> kernel/rcutree_plugin.h | 14 +++++++++++---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 1 -
> 8 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Pulled, thanks Paul!

Ingo
--
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/