Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:47:40 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context |
| |
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 06:37:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 03:55:34PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > The trinity syscall fuzzer triggered following WARN on powerpc: > > > WARNING: CPU: 9 PID: 2998 at arch/powerpc/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c:278 > > > ... > > > NIP [c00000000093aedc] .hw_breakpoint_handler+0x28c/0x2b0 > > > LR [c00000000093aed8] .hw_breakpoint_handler+0x288/0x2b0 > > > Call Trace: > > > [c0000002f7933580] [c00000000093aed8] .hw_breakpoint_handler+0x288/0x2b0 (unreliable) > > > [c0000002f7933630] [c0000000000f671c] .notifier_call_chain+0x7c/0xf0 > > > [c0000002f79336d0] [c0000000000f6abc] .__atomic_notifier_call_chain+0xbc/0x1c0 > > > [c0000002f7933780] [c0000000000f6c40] .notify_die+0x70/0xd0 > > > [c0000002f7933820] [c00000000001a74c] .do_break+0x4c/0x100 > > > [c0000002f7933920] [c0000000000089fc] handle_dabr_fault+0x14/0x48 > > > > > > Followed by lockdep warning: > > > =============================== > > > [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ] > > > 4.8.0-rc5+ #7 Tainted: G W > > > ------------------------------- > > > ./include/linux/rcupdate.h:556 Illegal context switch in RCU read-side critical section! > > > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > > > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > > > 2 locks held by ls/2998: > > > #0: (rcu_read_lock){......}, at: [<c0000000000f6a00>] .__atomic_notifier_call_chain+0x0/0x1c0 > > > #1: (rcu_read_lock){......}, at: [<c00000000093ac50>] .hw_breakpoint_handler+0x0/0x2b0 > > > > > > stack backtrace: > > > CPU: 9 PID: 2998 Comm: ls Tainted: G W 4.8.0-rc5+ #7 > > > Call Trace: > > > [c0000002f7933150] [c00000000094b1f8] .dump_stack+0xe0/0x14c (unreliable) > > > [c0000002f79331e0] [c00000000013c468] .lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x138/0x180 > > > [c0000002f7933270] [c0000000001005d8] .___might_sleep+0x278/0x2e0 > > > [c0000002f7933300] [c000000000935584] .mutex_lock_nested+0x64/0x5a0 > > > [c0000002f7933410] [c00000000023084c] .perf_event_ctx_lock_nested+0x16c/0x380 > > > [c0000002f7933500] [c000000000230a80] .perf_event_disable+0x20/0x60 > > > [c0000002f7933580] [c00000000093aeec] .hw_breakpoint_handler+0x29c/0x2b0 > > > [c0000002f7933630] [c0000000000f671c] .notifier_call_chain+0x7c/0xf0 > > > [c0000002f79336d0] [c0000000000f6abc] .__atomic_notifier_call_chain+0xbc/0x1c0 > > > [c0000002f7933780] [c0000000000f6c40] .notify_die+0x70/0xd0 > > > [c0000002f7933820] [c00000000001a74c] .do_break+0x4c/0x100 > > > [c0000002f7933920] [c0000000000089fc] handle_dabr_fault+0x14/0x48 > > > > > > > Well, that lockdep warning only says you should not be taking sleeping > > locks while holding rcu_read_lock(), which is true. It does not say the > > context you're doing this is cannot sleep. > > > > I'm not familiar enough with the PPC stuff to tell if the DIE_DABR_MATCH > > trap context is atomic or not and this Changelog doesn't tell me. > > > > Anybody? > > ping
So I think all the DIE notifiers are atomic, which means this would indeed be the thing to do. That said, I didn't see anything similar on other BP implementations.
So it would be good to also explain why PPC needs this in the first place.
|  |