lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [tip: locking/core] lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion
On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 11:30:38AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 06:58 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 09:41:24AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 07:58 +0000, tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:
> > > >
> > > > Commit-ID: 4d004099a668c41522242aa146a38cc4eb59cb1e
> > > > Gitweb:
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/tip/4d004099a668c41522242aa146a38cc4eb59cb1e
> > > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > > AuthorDate: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 11:04:21 +02:00
> > > > Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> > > > CommitterDate: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 08:53:30 +02:00
> > > >
> > > > lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion
> > > >
> > > > Steve reported that lockdep_assert*irq*(), when nested inside lockdep
> > > > itself, will trigger a false-positive.
> > > >
> > > > One example is the stack-trace code, as called from inside lockdep,
> > > > triggering tracing, which in turn calls RCU, which then uses
> > > > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled().
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: a21ee6055c30 ("lockdep: Change hardirq{s_enabled,_context} to per-
> > > > cpu
> > > > variables")
> > > > Reported-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> > >
> > > Reverting this linux-next commit fixed booting RCU-list warnings everywhere.
> >
> > Is it possible that the RCU-list warnings were being wrongly suppressed
> > without a21ee6055c30? As in are you certain that these RCU-list warnings
> > are in fact false positives?
>
> I guess you mean this commit a046a86082cc ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion")
> instead of a21ee6055c30. It is unclear to me how that commit a046a86082cc would
> suddenly start to generate those warnings, although I can see it starts to use
> percpu variables even though the CPU is not yet set online.
>
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, lockdep_recursion);
>
> Anyway, the problem is that when we in the early boot:
>
> start_secondary()
> smp_init_secondary()
> init_cpu_timer()
> clockevents_register_device()
>
> We are taking a lock there but the CPU is not yet online, and the
> __lock_acquire() would call things like hlist_for_each_entry_rcu() from
> lookup_chain_cache() or register_lock_class(). Thus, triggering the RCU-list
> from an offline CPU warnings.
>
> I am not entirely sure how to fix those though.

One approach is to move the call to rcu_cpu_starting() earlier in the
start_secondary() processing. It is OK to invoke rcu_cpu_starting()
multiple times, so for experiemental purposes you should be able to add
a new call to it just before that lock is acquired.

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-09 18:12    [W:0.082 / U:2.524 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site