Thread (22 messages) 22 messages, 5 authors, 2015-08-11

Re: [PATCH RT 2/4] Revert "timers: do not raise softirq unconditionally"

From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Date: 2015-03-17 20:35:58
Also in: lkml

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:35:43 -0400
Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:
3.10.70-rt75-rc2 stable review patch.
If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------
Here's the missing change log for this revert. I'll go back and add it
in:


An issue arisen that if a rt_mutex (spin_lock converted to a mutex
in PREEMPT_RT) is taken in hard interrupt context, it could cause
a false deadlock detection and trigger a BUG_ON() from the return
value of task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() in rt_spin_lock_slowlock().

The problem is this:

    CPU0			CPU1
    ----			----
  spin_lock(A)
				spin_lock(A)
			[ blocks, but spins as owner on
			  CPU 0 is running ]

				<interrupt>
					spin_trylock(B)
					[ succeeds ]

  spin_lock(B)
  <blocks>

Now the deadlock detection triggers and follows the locking:

  Task X (on CPU0) blocked on spinlock B owned by task Y on
  CPU1 (via the interrupt taking it with a try lock)

  The owner of B (Y) is blocked on spin_lock A (still spinning)
  A is owned by task X (self). DEADLOCK detected! BUG_ON triggered.

This was caused by the code to try to not raise softirq unconditionally
to allow NO_HZ_FULL to work. Unfortunately, reverting that patch causes
NO_HZ_FULL to break again, but that's still better than triggering
a BUG_ON().



-- Steve
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help