Thread (3 messages) 3 messages, 2 authors, 2016-12-08

Re: Lockdep splat from destroy_workqueue() with RT_PREEMPT_FULL

From: John Keeping <hidden>
Date: 2016-12-08 16:25:57
Also in: lkml

Hi Sebastian,

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:33:06 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2016-12-08 12:20:28 [+0000], John Keeping wrote:
quoted
I am seeing the following splat when stopping btattach on v4.4.30-rt41
with PREEMPT_RT_FULL with lockdep and slub_debug.

The bad unlock balance seems to just be an effect of the lock having
been overwritten with POISON_FREE, the real issue is that
put_pwq_unlocked() is not resuming and unlocking the pool before the RCU
work scheduled indirectly by put_pwq() has completed.  
can you reproduce this? If so, is this patch helping?
Yes, I am able to reproduce it reasonably reliably, or at least I *was*
able to: since applying the patch below I haven't seen it fail at all,
so consider the patch:

Tested-by: John Keeping <redacted>

quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
--- a/kernel/workqueue.c
+++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
@@ -1135,9 +1135,11 @@ static void put_pwq_unlocked(struct pool_workqueue *pwq)
 		 * As both pwqs and pools are RCU protected, the
 		 * following lock operations are safe.
 		 */
+		rcu_read_lock();
 		local_spin_lock_irq(pendingb_lock, &pwq->pool->lock);
 		put_pwq(pwq);
 		local_spin_unlock_irq(pendingb_lock, &pwq->pool->lock);
+		rcu_read_unlock();
 	}
 }

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