mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-30 07:34:12 +08:00
48e0d3735a
2 Commits
Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alexei Starovoitov
|
a89fac57b5 |
bpf: fix lockdep false positive in percpu_freelist
Lockdep warns about false positive: [ 12.492084] 00000000e6b28347 (&head->lock){+...}, at: pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.492696] but this lock was taken by another, HARDIRQ-safe lock in the past: [ 12.493275] (&rq->lock){-.-.} [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] [ 12.493276] and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them. [ 12.493276] [ 12.494435] [ 12.494435] other info that might help us debug this: [ 12.494979] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 12.494979] [ 12.495518] CPU0 CPU1 [ 12.495879] ---- ---- [ 12.496243] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.496502] local_irq_disable(); [ 12.496969] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.497431] lock(&head->lock); [ 12.497890] <Interrupt> [ 12.498104] lock(&rq->lock); [ 12.498368] [ 12.498368] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 12.498368] [ 12.498837] 1 lock held by dd/276: [ 12.499110] #0: 00000000c58cb2ee (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: trace_call_bpf+0x5e/0x240 [ 12.499747] [ 12.499747] the shortest dependencies between 2nd lock and 1st lock: [ 12.500389] -> (&rq->lock){-.-.} { [ 12.500669] IN-HARDIRQ-W at: [ 12.500934] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.501373] scheduler_tick+0x4c/0xf0 [ 12.501812] update_process_times+0x40/0x50 [ 12.502294] tick_periodic+0x27/0xb0 [ 12.502723] tick_handle_periodic+0x1f/0x60 [ 12.503203] timer_interrupt+0x11/0x20 [ 12.503651] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x43/0x2c0 [ 12.504167] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50 [ 12.504674] handle_irq_event+0x37/0x60 [ 12.505139] handle_level_irq+0xa7/0x120 [ 12.505601] handle_irq+0xa1/0x150 [ 12.506018] do_IRQ+0x77/0x140 [ 12.506411] ret_from_intr+0x0/0x1d [ 12.506834] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x53/0x60 [ 12.507362] __setup_irq+0x481/0x730 [ 12.507789] setup_irq+0x49/0x80 [ 12.508195] hpet_time_init+0x21/0x32 [ 12.508644] x86_late_time_init+0xb/0x16 [ 12.509106] start_kernel+0x390/0x42a [ 12.509554] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.510034] IN-SOFTIRQ-W at: [ 12.510305] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.510772] try_to_wake_up+0x1c7/0x4e0 [ 12.511220] swake_up_locked+0x20/0x40 [ 12.511657] swake_up_one+0x1a/0x30 [ 12.512070] rcu_process_callbacks+0xc5/0x650 [ 12.512553] __do_softirq+0xe6/0x47b [ 12.512978] irq_exit+0xc3/0xd0 [ 12.513372] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0xa9/0x250 [ 12.513876] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 [ 12.514343] default_idle+0x1c/0x170 [ 12.514765] do_idle+0x199/0x240 [ 12.515159] cpu_startup_entry+0x19/0x20 [ 12.515614] start_kernel+0x422/0x42a [ 12.516045] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.516521] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.516774] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x38/0x50 [ 12.517258] rq_attach_root+0x16/0xd0 [ 12.517685] sched_init+0x2f2/0x3eb [ 12.518096] start_kernel+0x1fb/0x42a [ 12.518525] secondary_startup_64+0xa4/0xb0 [ 12.518986] } [ 12.519132] ... key at: [<ffffffff82b7bc28>] __key.71384+0x0/0x8 [ 12.519649] ... acquired at: [ 12.519892] pcpu_freelist_pop+0x7b/0xd0 [ 12.520221] bpf_get_stackid+0x1d2/0x4d0 [ 12.520563] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.520887] [ 12.521008] -> (&head->lock){+...} { [ 12.521292] HARDIRQ-ON-W at: [ 12.521539] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.521950] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.522396] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.522828] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.523296] INITIAL USE at: [ 12.523537] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.523944] pcpu_freelist_populate+0xc0/0x120 [ 12.524417] htab_map_alloc+0x405/0x500 [ 12.524835] __do_sys_bpf+0x1a3/0x1a90 [ 12.525253] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x180 [ 12.525659] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe [ 12.526167] } [ 12.526311] ... key at: [<ffffffff838f7668>] __key.13130+0x0/0x8 [ 12.526812] ... acquired at: [ 12.527047] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.527371] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.527680] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.527994] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.528325] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.528645] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.528970] [ 12.529092] [ 12.529092] stack backtrace: [ 12.529444] CPU: 0 PID: 276 Comm: dd Not tainted 5.0.0-rc3-00018-g2fa53f892422 #475 [ 12.530043] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-2.el7 04/01/2014 [ 12.530750] Call Trace: [ 12.530948] dump_stack+0x5f/0x8b [ 12.531248] check_usage_backwards+0x10c/0x120 [ 12.531598] ? ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 [ 12.531935] ? mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532229] mark_lock+0x382/0x560 [ 12.532496] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180 [ 12.532928] __lock_acquire+0x521/0x1350 [ 12.533271] ? find_get_entry+0x17f/0x2e0 [ 12.533586] ? find_get_entry+0x19c/0x2e0 [ 12.533902] ? lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534196] lock_acquire+0x98/0x190 [ 12.534482] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.534810] _raw_spin_lock+0x2f/0x40 [ 12.535099] ? pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535432] pcpu_freelist_push+0x2a/0x40 [ 12.535750] bpf_get_stackid+0x494/0x4d0 [ 12.536062] ___bpf_prog_run+0x8b4/0x11a0 It has been explained that is a false positive here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/7/25/756 Recap: - stackmap uses pcpu_freelist - The lock in pcpu_freelist is a percpu lock - stackmap is only used by tracing bpf_prog - A tracing bpf_prog cannot be run if another bpf_prog has already been running (ensured by the percpu bpf_prog_active counter). Eric pointed out that this lockdep splats stops other legit lockdep splats in selftests/bpf/test_progs.c. Fix this by calling local_irq_save/restore for stackmap. Another false positive had also been worked around by calling local_irq_save in commit |
||
Alexei Starovoitov
|
e19494edab |
bpf: introduce percpu_freelist
Introduce simple percpu_freelist to keep single list of elements spread across per-cpu singly linked lists. /* push element into the list */ void pcpu_freelist_push(struct pcpu_freelist *, struct pcpu_freelist_node *); /* pop element from the list */ struct pcpu_freelist_node *pcpu_freelist_pop(struct pcpu_freelist *); The object is pushed to the current cpu list. Pop first trying to get the object from the current cpu list, if it's empty goes to the neigbour cpu list. For bpf program usage pattern the collision rate is very low, since programs push and pop the objects typically on the same cpu. Signed-off-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> |