lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: possible lockdep regression introduced by 4d004099a668 ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion")
From
Date


On 26/10/20 15:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:55:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:56:03AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>> That smells like the same issue reported here:
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201022111700.GZ2651@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
>>>>
>>>> Make sure you have commit:
>>>>
>>>> f8e48a3dca06 ("lockdep: Fix preemption WARN for spurious IRQ-enable")
>>>>
>>>> (in Linus' tree by now) and do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT enabled?
>>>
>>> Yes, CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is enabled.
>>
>> Bummer :/
>>
>>> I'll try with that commit and let you know, however it's gonna take a
>>> few hours to build a kernel and run all fstests (on that test box it
>>> takes over 3 hours) to confirm that fixes the issue.
>>
>> *ouch*, 3 hours is painful. How long to make it sick with the current
>> kernel? quicker I would hope?
>>
>>> Thanks for the quick reply!
>>
>> Anyway, I don't think that commit can actually explain the issue :/
>>
>> The false positive on lockdep_assert_held() happens when the recursion
>> count is !0, however we _should_ be having IRQs disabled when
>> lockdep_recursion > 0, so that should never be observable.
>>
>> My hope was that DEBUG_PREEMPT would trigger on one of the
>> __this_cpu_{inc,dec}(lockdep_recursion) instance, because that would
>> then be a clear violation.
>>
>> And you're seeing this on x86, right?
>>
>> Let me puzzle moar..
>
> So I might have an explanation for the Sparc64 fail, but that can't
> explain x86 :/
>
> I initially thought raw_cpu_read() was OK, since if it is !0 we have
> IRQs disabled and can't get migrated, so if we get migrated both CPUs
> must have 0 and it doesn't matter which 0 we read.
>
> And while that is true; it isn't the whole store, on pretty much all
> architectures (except x86) this can result in computing the address for
> one CPU, getting migrated, the old CPU continuing execution with another
> task (possibly setting recursion) and then the new CPU reading the value
> of the old CPU, which is no longer 0.
>
> I already fixed a bunch of that in:
>
> baffd723e44d ("lockdep: Revert "lockdep: Use raw_cpu_*() for per-cpu variables"")
>
> but clearly this one got crossed.
>
> Still, that leaves me puzzled over you seeing this on x86 :/

Hi Peter,

I still get the same issue with 5.10-rc2.
Is there any non-merged patch I should try, or anything I can help with?

Thanks.

>
> Anatoly, could you try linus+tip/locking/urgent and the below on your
> Sparc, please?
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 3e99dfef8408..a3041463e42d 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ static inline bool lockdep_enabled(void)
> if (!debug_locks)
> return false;
>
> - if (raw_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion))
> + if (this_cpu_read(lockdep_recursion))
> return false;
>
> if (current->lockdep_recursion)
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-02 18:59    [W:0.085 / U:2.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site