-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSrhGrAAoJEHm+PkMAQRiGsNoH/jIK3CsQ2lbW7yRLXmfgtbzz
i2Kep6D4SDvmaLpLYOVC8xNYTiE8jtTbSXHomwP5wMZ63MQDhBfnEWsEWqeZ9+D9
3Q46p0QWuoBgYu2VGkoxTfygkT6hhSpwWIi3SeImbY4fg57OHiUil/+YGhORM4Qc
K4549OCTY3sIrgmWL77gzqjRUo+pQ4C73NKqZ3+5nlOmYBZC1yugk8mFwEpQkwhK
4NRNU760Fo+XIht/bINqRiPMddzC15p0mxvJy3cDW8bZa1tFSS9SB7AQUULBbcHL
+2dFlFOEb5SV1sNiNPrJ0W+h2qUh2e7kPB0F8epaBppgbwVdyQoC2u4uuLV2ZN0=
=lI2r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Merge tag 'v3.13-rc4' into core/locking
Merge Linux 3.13-rc4, to refresh this rather old tree with the latest fixes.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
RCU must ensure that there is the equivalent of a full memory
barrier between any memory access preceding grace period and any
memory access following that same grace period, regardless of
which CPU(s) happen to execute the two memory accesses.
Therefore, downgrading UNLOCK+LOCK to no longer imply a full
memory barrier requires some adjustments to RCU.
This commit therefore adds smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
invocations as needed after the RCU lock acquisitions that need
to be part of a full-memory-barrier UNLOCK+LOCK.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1386799151-2219-7-git-send-email-paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Whenever a CPU receives a scheduling-clock interrupt, RCU checks to see
if the RCU core needs anything from this CPU. If so, RCU raises
RCU_SOFTIRQ to carry out any needed processing.
This approach has worked well historically, but it is undesirable on
NO_HZ_FULL CPUs. Such CPUs are expected to spend almost all of their time
in userspace, so that scheduling-clock interrupts can be disabled while
there is only one runnable task on the CPU in question. Unfortunately,
raising any softirq has the potential to wake up ksoftirqd, which would
provide the second runnable task on that CPU, preventing disabling of
scheduling-clock interrupts.
What is needed instead is for RCU to leave NO_HZ_FULL CPUs alone,
relying on the grace-period kthreads' quiescent-state forcing to
do any needed RCU work on behalf of those CPUs.
This commit therefore refrains from raising RCU_SOFTIRQ on any
NO_HZ_FULL CPUs during any grace periods that have been in effect
for less than one second. The one-second limit handles the case
where an inappropriate workload is running on a NO_HZ_FULL CPU
that features lots of scheduling-clock interrupts, but no idle
or userspace time.
Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@online.de>
Toasted-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
After commit #10f39bb1b2c1 (rcu: protect __rcu_read_unlock() against
scheduler-using irq handlers), it is no longer possible to enter
the main body of rcu_read_lock_special() from an NMI, interrupt, or
softirq handler. In theory, this implies that the check for "in_irq()
|| in_serving_softirq()" must always fail, so that in theory this check
could be removed entirely.
In practice, this commit wraps this condition with a WARN_ON_ONCE().
If this warning never triggers, then the condition will be removed
entirely.
[ paulmck: And one way of triggering the WARN_ON() is if a scheduling
clock interrupt occurs in an RCU read-side critical section, setting
RCU_READ_UNLOCK_NEED_QS, which is handled by rcu_read_unlock_special().
Updated this commit to return if only that bit was set. ]
Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Dave Jones got the following lockdep splat:
> ======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 3.12.0-rc3+ #92 Not tainted
> -------------------------------------------------------
> trinity-child2/15191 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&rdp->nocb_wq){......}, at: [<ffffffff8108ff43>] __wake_up+0x23/0x50
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81154c19>] perf_event_exit_task+0x109/0x230
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #3 (&ctx->lock){-.-...}:
> [<ffffffff810cc243>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x200
> [<ffffffff81733f90>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
> [<ffffffff811500ff>] __perf_event_task_sched_out+0x2df/0x5e0
> [<ffffffff81091b83>] perf_event_task_sched_out+0x93/0xa0
> [<ffffffff81732052>] __schedule+0x1d2/0xa20
> [<ffffffff81732f30>] preempt_schedule_irq+0x50/0xb0
> [<ffffffff817352b6>] retint_kernel+0x26/0x30
> [<ffffffff813eed04>] tty_flip_buffer_push+0x34/0x50
> [<ffffffff813f0504>] pty_write+0x54/0x60
> [<ffffffff813e900d>] n_tty_write+0x32d/0x4e0
> [<ffffffff813e5838>] tty_write+0x158/0x2d0
> [<ffffffff811c4850>] vfs_write+0xc0/0x1f0
> [<ffffffff811c52cc>] SyS_write+0x4c/0xa0
> [<ffffffff8173d4e4>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
>
> -> #2 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
> [<ffffffff810cc243>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x200
> [<ffffffff81733f90>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
> [<ffffffff810980b2>] wake_up_new_task+0xc2/0x2e0
> [<ffffffff81054336>] do_fork+0x126/0x460
> [<ffffffff81054696>] kernel_thread+0x26/0x30
> [<ffffffff8171ff93>] rest_init+0x23/0x140
> [<ffffffff81ee1e4b>] start_kernel+0x3f6/0x403
> [<ffffffff81ee1571>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> [<ffffffff81ee1664>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xf1/0xf4
>
> -> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
> [<ffffffff810cc243>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x200
> [<ffffffff8173419b>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4b/0x90
> [<ffffffff810979d1>] try_to_wake_up+0x31/0x350
> [<ffffffff81097d62>] default_wake_function+0x12/0x20
> [<ffffffff81084af8>] autoremove_wake_function+0x18/0x40
> [<ffffffff8108ea38>] __wake_up_common+0x58/0x90
> [<ffffffff8108ff59>] __wake_up+0x39/0x50
> [<ffffffff8110d4f8>] __call_rcu_nocb_enqueue+0xa8/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81111450>] __call_rcu+0x140/0x820
> [<ffffffff81111b8d>] call_rcu+0x1d/0x20
> [<ffffffff81093697>] cpu_attach_domain+0x287/0x360
> [<ffffffff81099d7e>] build_sched_domains+0xe5e/0x10a0
> [<ffffffff81efa7fc>] sched_init_smp+0x3b7/0x47a
> [<ffffffff81ee1f4e>] kernel_init_freeable+0xf6/0x202
> [<ffffffff817200be>] kernel_init+0xe/0x190
> [<ffffffff8173d22c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>
> -> #0 (&rdp->nocb_wq){......}:
> [<ffffffff810cb7ca>] __lock_acquire+0x191a/0x1be0
> [<ffffffff810cc243>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x200
> [<ffffffff8173419b>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4b/0x90
> [<ffffffff8108ff43>] __wake_up+0x23/0x50
> [<ffffffff8110d4f8>] __call_rcu_nocb_enqueue+0xa8/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81111450>] __call_rcu+0x140/0x820
> [<ffffffff81111bb0>] kfree_call_rcu+0x20/0x30
> [<ffffffff81149abf>] put_ctx+0x4f/0x70
> [<ffffffff81154c3e>] perf_event_exit_task+0x12e/0x230
> [<ffffffff81056b8d>] do_exit+0x30d/0xcc0
> [<ffffffff8105893c>] do_group_exit+0x4c/0xc0
> [<ffffffff810589c4>] SyS_exit_group+0x14/0x20
> [<ffffffff8173d4e4>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Chain exists of:
> &rdp->nocb_wq --> &rq->lock --> &ctx->lock
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&ctx->lock);
> lock(&rq->lock);
> lock(&ctx->lock);
> lock(&rdp->nocb_wq);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 1 lock held by trinity-child2/15191:
> #0: (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81154c19>] perf_event_exit_task+0x109/0x230
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 2 PID: 15191 Comm: trinity-child2 Not tainted 3.12.0-rc3+ #92
> ffffffff82565b70 ffff880070c2dbf8 ffffffff8172a363 ffffffff824edf40
> ffff880070c2dc38 ffffffff81726741 ffff880070c2dc90 ffff88022383b1c0
> ffff88022383aac0 0000000000000000 ffff88022383b188 ffff88022383b1c0
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8172a363>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x82
> [<ffffffff81726741>] print_circular_bug+0x200/0x20f
> [<ffffffff810cb7ca>] __lock_acquire+0x191a/0x1be0
> [<ffffffff810c6439>] ? get_lock_stats+0x19/0x60
> [<ffffffff8100b2f4>] ? native_sched_clock+0x24/0x80
> [<ffffffff810cc243>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x200
> [<ffffffff8108ff43>] ? __wake_up+0x23/0x50
> [<ffffffff8173419b>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4b/0x90
> [<ffffffff8108ff43>] ? __wake_up+0x23/0x50
> [<ffffffff8108ff43>] __wake_up+0x23/0x50
> [<ffffffff8110d4f8>] __call_rcu_nocb_enqueue+0xa8/0xc0
> [<ffffffff81111450>] __call_rcu+0x140/0x820
> [<ffffffff8109bc8f>] ? local_clock+0x3f/0x50
> [<ffffffff81111bb0>] kfree_call_rcu+0x20/0x30
> [<ffffffff81149abf>] put_ctx+0x4f/0x70
> [<ffffffff81154c3e>] perf_event_exit_task+0x12e/0x230
> [<ffffffff81056b8d>] do_exit+0x30d/0xcc0
> [<ffffffff810c9af5>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x115/0x1e0
> [<ffffffff810c9bcd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> [<ffffffff8105893c>] do_group_exit+0x4c/0xc0
> [<ffffffff810589c4>] SyS_exit_group+0x14/0x20
> [<ffffffff8173d4e4>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
The underlying problem is that perf is invoking call_rcu() with the
scheduler locks held, but in NOCB mode, call_rcu() will with high
probability invoke the scheduler -- which just might want to use its
locks. The reason that call_rcu() needs to invoke the scheduler is
to wake up the corresponding rcuo callback-offload kthread, which
does the job of starting up a grace period and invoking the callbacks
afterwards.
One solution (championed on a related problem by Lai Jiangshan) is to
simply defer the wakeup to some point where scheduler locks are no longer
held. Since we don't want to unnecessarily incur the cost of such
deferral, the task before us is threefold:
1. Determine when it is likely that a relevant scheduler lock is held.
2. Defer the wakeup in such cases.
3. Ensure that all deferred wakeups eventually happen, preferably
sooner rather than later.
We use irqs_disabled_flags() as a proxy for relevant scheduler locks
being held. This works because the relevant locks are always acquired
with interrupts disabled. We may defer more often than needed, but that
is at least safe.
The wakeup deferral is tracked via a new field in the per-CPU and
per-RCU-flavor rcu_data structure, namely ->nocb_defer_wakeup.
This flag is checked by the RCU core processing. The __rcu_pending()
function now checks this flag, which causes rcu_check_callbacks()
to initiate RCU core processing at each scheduling-clock interrupt
where this flag is set. Of course this is not sufficient because
scheduling-clock interrupts are often turned off (the things we used to
be able to count on!). So the flags are also checked on entry to any
state that RCU considers to be idle, which includes both NO_HZ_IDLE idle
state and NO_HZ_FULL user-mode-execution state.
This approach should allow call_rcu() to be invoked regardless of what
locks you might be holding, the key word being "should".
Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
It is all too easy to forget that wait_event() does not necessarily
imply a full memory barrier. The case where it does not is where the
condition transitions to true just as wait_event() starts execution.
This is actually a feature: The standard use of wait_event() involves
locking, in which case the locks provide the needed ordering (you hold a
lock across the wake_up() and acquire that same lock after wait_event()
returns).
Given that I did forget that wait_event() does not necessarily imply a
full memory barrier in one case, this commit fixes that case. This commit
also adds comments calling out the placement of existing memory barriers
relied on by wait_event() calls.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
RCU and the fine grained idle time accounting functions check
tick_nohz_enabled. But that variable is merily telling that NOHZ has
been enabled in the config and not been disabled on the command line.
But it does not tell anything about nohz being active. That's what all
this should check for.
Matthew reported, that the idle accounting on his old P1 machine
showed bogus values, when he enabled NOHZ in the config and did not
disable it on the kernel command line. The reason is that his machine
uses (refined) jiffies as a clocksource which explains why the "fine"
grained accounting went into lala land, because it depends on when the
system goes and leaves idle relative to the jiffies increment.
Provide a tick_nohz_active indicator and let RCU and the accounting
code use this instead of tick_nohz_enable.
Reported-and-tested-by: Matthew Whitehead <tedheadster@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: john.stultz@linaro.org
Cc: mwhitehe@redhat.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.02.1311132052240.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de
