Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc4.8.x

From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Fri Nov 22 2013 - 08:06:34 EST

Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: Change freq before suspending governors"
Previous message: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz: "Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] regulator: max14577: Add regulator driver for Maxim14577"
In reply to: Luis Lozano: "Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc 4.8.x"
Next in thread: Mathieu Desnoyers: "Re: [lttng-dev] current_thread_info() not respecting program orderwith gcc 4.8.x"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Luis Lozano" <llozano@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Alexander Holler" <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Linus Torvalds"
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Henderson" <rth@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>,
> "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lttng-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Nathan Lynch" <Nathan_Lynch@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul
> E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bhaskar Janakiraman"
> <bjanakiraman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Han Shen" <shenhan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 3:18:14 AM
> Subject: Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc 4.8.x
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Luis Lozano" <llozano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Alexander Holler"
> > > <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Linus Torvalds"
> > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Henderson" <rth@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
> > > <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>,
> > > "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>,
> > > "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lttng-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > > "Nathan Lynch" <Nathan_Lynch@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul
> > > E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Morton"
> > > <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bhaskar Janakiraman"
> > > <bjanakiraman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Han Shen" <shenhan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 9:36:27 PM
> > > Subject: Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc
> > > 4.8.x
> > >
> > > Hi Mathieu,
> > >
> > > Yes the problem we were seeing with GCC bug 58854 is that an interrupt
> > > handler was corrupting the stack of a routine which had an invalid
> > > value of SP (not really on "top" of the stack) for part of the
> > > routine.
> > > But in the assembly code you sent, I don't see where sp is being
> > > modified... or where the access to "below" sp is happening.
> >
> > The following instruction
> >
> > f1c: e50b1048 str r1, [fp, #-72] ; 0xffffffb8
> >
> > appears in the assembly generated by gcc 4.8.2, but not in the one
> > generated by 4.7.3,
>
>
>
> It is there in 4.7.3 just a few lines difference.
> I don't see any meaningful difference between the 2 assembly snippets...
> Just the instructions ordered a little different?
>
> Luis

(resending reply in plain text)

Assembly generated by 4.7.3 vs 4.8.2 are much more different.

The diff I've presented yesterday is between 4.8.2 and 4.8.2+barrier() at the end of
the function error path. When I can get a cross compiler to work, I will send out more
the complete assembly listings of the function.

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> >
> > which makes me wonder if it's good or not. With
> > slightly different build output from the diff (probably a different config
> > from Nathan), the first function instructions look like:
> >
> > 00000efc <lttng_event_reserve>:
> > efc: e1a0c00d mov ip, sp
> > f00: e92ddff0 push {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, sl, fp,
> > ip, lr, pc}
> > f04: e24cb004 sub fp, ip, #4
> > f08: e24dd03c sub sp, sp, #60 ; 0x3c
> > f0c: e52de004 push {lr} ; (str lr, [sp,
> > #-4]!)
> > f10: ebfffffe bl 0 <__gnu_mcount_nc>
> > f14: e5903000 ldr r3, [r0]
> > f18: e1a04000 mov r4, r0
> > f1c: e1a0000d mov r0, sp
> > f20: e5936030 ldr r6, [r3, #48] ; 0x30
> > f24: e3c03d7f bic r3, r0, #8128 ; 0x1fc0
> > f28: e3c3303f bic r3, r3, #63 ; 0x3f
> > f2c: e50b104c str r1, [fp, #-76] ; 0xffffffb4
> > f30: e5932004 ldr r2, [r3, #4]
> > f34: e2822001 add r2, r2, #1
> > f38: e5832004 str r2, [r3, #4]
> > f3c: ebfffffe bl 0 <debug_smp_processor_id>
> > f40: e59f2e44 ldr r2, [pc, #3652] ; 1d8c
> > <lttng_event_reserve+0xe90>
> > f44: e59f3e44 ldr r3, [pc, #3652] ; 1d90
> > <lttng_event_reserve+0xe94>
> > f48: e7921100 ldr r1, [r2, r0, lsl #2]
> > f4c: e1a05000 mov r5, r0
> > f50: e7932001 ldr r2, [r3, r1]
> >
> > My rusty ARM assembler knowledge analyzes this like:
> >
> > ip = sp (ip being the scratch register)
> > push 11 registers * 4 bytes = 44 bytes onto the stack
> > fp = ip - 4
> > sp = sp - 60 (sp = ip - 104)
> > push {lr} bl
> > 0 <__gnu_mcount_nc> (dynamically patched to a pop {lr})
> > [...]
> > store r1 into mem location fp - 76
> >
> > So yes, it does look like the -76 from fp is within the stack.
> >
> >
> > > In GCC bug 58854 it was pretty clear that the restore of the sp
> > > register in the epilogue is moved to somewhere close to the prologue
> > > of the routine.
> > > Are we missing some diffs from the assembly comparison?
> >
> > My next step is to setup my own 4.8.2 ARM cross-compiler. I've tried this
> > morning,
> > did not manage to get one working even after following 2 howtos, trying
> > with Debian
> > packages, etc. Nathan told me this diff was the full comparison between the
> > two
> > functions, but you'll understand that at this point I want to reproduce
> > everything myself, because this is a _weird_ issue.
> >
> > But after a long day of debugging, it's time for some sleep. I will get
> > back to this
> > tomorrow,
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Luis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> From: "Jakub Jelinek" <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> To: "Luis Lozano" <llozano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> Cc: "Alexander Holler" <holler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Linus Torvalds"
> > > >> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mathieu Desnoyers"
> > > >> <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Richard Henderson"
> > > >> <rth@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > >> "Linux Kernel Mailing List"
> > > >> <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Will Deacon" <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>,
> > > >> "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>,
> > > >> "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lttng-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > > >> "Nathan Lynch" <Nathan_Lynch@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul
> > > >> E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrew Morton"
> > > >> <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bhaskar Janakiraman"
> > > >> <bjanakiraman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Han Shen" <shenhan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 7:39:04 PM
> > > >> Subject: Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with
> > > >> gcc
> > > >> 4.8.x
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 03:45:35PM -0800, Luis Lozano wrote:
> > > >> > I think we need a reproducer. Without this we may all be going on
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > wrong path. This whole conversation started on an *assumption* that
> > > >> > some accesses were being reordered.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > evidence of the reorder or reproducer please?
> > > >>
> > > >> Yeah, if a compiler bug is suspected, can anybody please open
> > > >> a bugreport in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ with the preprocessed
> > > >> source,
> > > >> compiler version, flags and how it was configured and some hint in
> > > >> which
> > > >> function to look for what exactly? We don't necessarily need a
> > > >> runtime
> > > >> small reproducer, but if it can be shown in the assembly what has been
> > > >> reordered and why you think it shouldn't, with the above mentioned
> > > >> input
> > > >> that ought to be sufficient. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > OK OK, let me reply on list first so I can share the result of a full
> > > > day
> > > > of bug hunting. We're not there yet, but many options have been
> > > > eliminated.
> > > >
> > > > The issue shows up in stress test, when tracing with lttng-modules
> > > > 2.4-rc1,
> > > > on ARM. It's been reproduced with a Linux kernel 3.12 so far, with
> > > > lttng-modules
> > > > compiled against that kernel.
> > > >
> > > > First, I asked Nathan to compile his kernel with gcc 4.7, and
> > > > lttng-modules
> > > > with gcc 4.8.x (and vice-versa). The problem only appears when
> > > > lttng-modules
> > > > are compiled with gcc 4.8.x. The compiler version used to compile the
> > > > rest
> > > > of the kernel does not matter.
> > > >
> > > > Then I looked at gcc 4.8 changelog for ARM, new feature:
> > > > -fno-sched-pressure
> > > > (sched pressure is there by default). Nathan tried compiling
> > > > lttng-modules
> > > > with
> > > > -fno-sched-pressure. The problem still reproduces.
> > > >
> > > > Knowing that adding barrier() outside of preempt_disable()/enable() was
> > > > fixing the issue, we tried identifying which code location was
> > > > responsible
> > > > for working around the issue. Skipping a long investigation, here is
> > > > the
> > > > executive summary:
> > > >
> > > > http://git.lttng.org/?p=lttng-modules.git;a=blob;f=lttng-ring-buffer-client.h;h=50c47b3bf49f6c2dd24e250cf1a9b97808cd8e27;hb=HEAD
> > > >
> > > > Has the following function. We identified that adding a barrier() as
> > > > shown
> > > > below
> > > > works around the issue:
> > > >
> > > > static
> > > > int lttng_event_reserve(struct lib_ring_buffer_ctx *ctx,
> > > > uint32_t event_id)
> > > > {
> > > > struct lttng_channel *lttng_chan =
> > > > channel_get_private(ctx->chan);
> > > > int ret, cpu;
> > > >
> > > > cpu = lib_ring_buffer_get_cpu(&client_config);
> > > > if (cpu < 0)
> > > > return -EPERM;
> > > > ctx->cpu = cpu;
> > > >
> > > > switch (lttng_chan->header_type) {
> > > > case 1: /* compact */
> > > > if (event_id > 30)
> > > > ctx->rflags |= LTTNG_RFLAG_EXTENDED;
> > > > break;
> > > > case 2: /* large */
> > > > if (event_id > 65534)
> > > > ctx->rflags |= LTTNG_RFLAG_EXTENDED;
> > > > break;
> > > > default:
> > > > WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > ret = lib_ring_buffer_reserve(&client_config, ctx);
> > > > if (ret)
> > > > goto put;
> > > > lttng_write_event_header(&client_config, ctx, event_id);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > put:
> > > > lib_ring_buffer_put_cpu(&client_config);
> > > > ---------------> barrier() added here;
> > > > <----------------------------
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Where barrier() is the usual asm volatile with "memory" clobber,
> > > > nothing
> > > > else.
> > > >
> > > > Nathan gave me the binary diff for the assembly generated for this
> > > > function
> > > > without
> > > > the barrier and with the barrier:
> > > >
> > > > --- /tmp/lttng_event_reserve-4.8.2.dump 2013-11-21 11:14:14.536495079
> > > > -0600
> > > > +++ /tmp/lttng_event_reserve-with-barrier-4.8.2.dump 2013-11-21
> > > > 14:12:52.997355907 -0600
> > > > @@ -7,11 +7,11 @@
> > > > f10: ebfffffe bl 0 <__gnu_mcount_nc>
> > > > f14: e5903000 ldr r3, [r0]
> > > > f18: e1a04000 mov r4, r0
> > > > - f1c: e50b1048 str r1, [fp, #-72] ; 0xffffffb8
> > > > + f1c: e1a0000d mov r0, sp
> > > > f20: e5936030 ldr r6, [r3, #48] ; 0x30
> > > > - f24: e1a0000d mov r0, sp
> > > > - f28: e3c03d7f bic r3, r0, #8128 ; 0x1fc0
> > > > - f2c: e3c3303f bic r3, r3, #63 ; 0x3f
> > > > + f24: e3c03d7f bic r3, r0, #8128 ; 0x1fc0
> > > > + f28: e3c3303f bic r3, r3, #63 ; 0x3f
> > > > + f2c: e50b1048 str r1, [fp, #-72] ; 0xffffffb8
> > > > f30: e5932004 ldr r2, [r3, #4]
> > > > f34: e2822001 add r2, r2, #1
> > > > f38: e5832004 str r2, [r3, #4]
> > > > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
> > > > fc8: e3c3303f bic r3, r3, #63 ; 0x3f
> > > > fcc: e5933000 ldr r3, [r3]
> > > > fd0: e3130002 tst r3, #2
> > > > - fd4: 0a000000 beq fdc <lttng_event_reserve+0xe0>
> > > > + fd4: 0a0002be beq 1ad4
> > > > <lttng_event_reserve+0xbd8>
> > > > fd8: ebfffffe bl 0 <preempt_schedule>
> > > > fdc: ea0002bc b 1ad4
> > > > <lttng_event_reserve+0xbd8>
> > > > fe0: e3500000 cmp r0, #0
> > > >
> > > > We tried disabling the ftrace function tracing to get mcount out of the
> > > > way,
> > > > and the problem still reproduces.
> > > >
> > > > I'm stopping here in terms of details about the disassembly, because I
> > > > need to double check with Nathan that I get the right disassembly for
> > > > the
> > > > right
> > > > cases. I also terribly need to setup a 4.8.2 ARM cross-compiler on my
> > > > machine.
> > > >
> > > > I'm attaching Nathan's ARM configuration.
> > > >
> > > > It does look behave a bit like this bug pointed out by Luis:
> > > >
> > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58854
> > > >
> > > > AFAIU (please correct me if I am wrong), ARM's interrupt handler run
> > > > on top of the thread stack (?). If it's the case, then anything stored
> > > > on the stack below "sp" could be overwritten by an interrupt handler.
> > > > This would fit well the reproduction scenario for this bug: Nathan runs
> > > > LTTng tracing of kmem_cache_free tracepoint with hackbench running.
> > > > A race between a short window of stack use below sp and interrupt
> > > > handlers
> > > > would trigger with this kind of stress-test.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Mathieu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > > > EfficiOS Inc.
> > > > http://www.efficios.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Luis A. Lozano | Software Engineer | llozano@xxxxxxxxxx | +1
> > > (408)431-5164
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > EfficiOS Inc.
> > http://www.efficios.com
>

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/

Next message: Rafael J. Wysocki: "Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] cpufreq: Change freq before suspending governors"
Previous message: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz: "Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] regulator: max14577: Add regulator driver for Maxim14577"
In reply to: Luis Lozano: "Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc 4.8.x"
Next in thread: Mathieu Desnoyers: "Re: [lttng-dev] current_thread_info() not respecting program orderwith gcc 4.8.x"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]