Re: [PATCH linux-next][RFC] powerpc: avoid lockdep when we are offline
From: Zhouyi Zhou <hidden>
Date: 2022-09-28 01:49:12
Also in:
lkml, rcu
Thank Nick for reviewing my patch On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 12:25 PM Nicholas Piggin [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue Sep 27, 2022 at 11:48 AM AEST, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:quoted
This is second version of my fix to PPC's "WARNING: suspicious RCU usage", I improved my fix under Paul E. McKenney's guidance: Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220914021528.15946-1-zhouzhouyi@gmail.com/T/ (local) During the cpu offlining, the sub functions of xive_teardown_cpu will call __lock_acquire when CONFIG_LOCKDEP=y. The latter function will travel RCU protected list, so "WARNING: suspicious RCU usage" will be triggered. Avoid lockdep when we are offline.I don't see how this is safe. If RCU is no longer watching the CPU then the memory it is accessing here could be concurrently freed. I think the warning is valid.
Agree
powerpc's problem is that cpuhp_report_idle_dead() is called before arch_cpu_idle_dead(), so it must not rely on any RCU protection there. I would say xive cleanup just needs to be done earlier. I wonder why it is not done in __cpu_disable or thereabouts, that's where the interrupt controller is supposed to be stopped.
Yes, I learn flowing events sequence from kgdb debugging __cpu_disable -> pseries_cpu_disable -> set_cpu_online(cpu, false) = leads to => do_idle: if (cpu_is_offline(cpu) -> arch_cpu_idle_dead so xive cleanup should be done in pseries_cpu_disable. But as a beginner, I afraid that I am incompetent to do above sophisticated work without error although I am very like to, Could any expert do this for us? Thanks a lot Cheers Zhouyi
Thanks, Nickquoted
Signed-off-by: Zhouyi Zhou <redacted> --- Dear PPC and RCU developers I found this bug when trying to do rcutorture tests in ppc VM of Open Source Lab of Oregon State University console.log report following bug: [ 37.635545][ T0] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage^M [ 37.636409][ T0] 6.0.0-rc4-next-20220907-dirty #8 Not tainted^M [ 37.637575][ T0] -----------------------------^M [ 37.638306][ T0] kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3723 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!^M [ 37.639651][ T0] ^M [ 37.639651][ T0] other info that might help us debug this:^M [ 37.639651][ T0] ^M [ 37.641381][ T0] ^M [ 37.641381][ T0] RCU used illegally from offline CPU!^M [ 37.641381][ T0] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1^M [ 37.667170][ T0] no locks held by swapper/6/0.^M [ 37.668328][ T0] ^M [ 37.668328][ T0] stack backtrace:^M [ 37.669995][ T0] CPU: 6 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/6 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc4-next-20220907-dirty #8^M [ 37.672777][ T0] Call Trace:^M [ 37.673729][ T0] [c000000004653920] [c00000000097f9b4] dump_stack_lvl+0x98/0xe0 (unreliable)^M [ 37.678579][ T0] [c000000004653960] [c0000000001f2eb8] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0x148/0x16c^M [ 37.680425][ T0] [c0000000046539f0] [c0000000001ed9b4] __lock_acquire+0x10f4/0x26e0^M [ 37.682450][ T0] [c000000004653b30] [c0000000001efc2c] lock_acquire+0x12c/0x420^M [ 37.684113][ T0] [c000000004653c20] [c0000000010d704c] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x6c/0xc0^M [ 37.686154][ T0] [c000000004653c60] [c0000000000c7b4c] xive_spapr_put_ipi+0xcc/0x150^M [ 37.687879][ T0] [c000000004653ca0] [c0000000010c72a8] xive_cleanup_cpu_ipi+0xc8/0xf0^M [ 37.689856][ T0] [c000000004653cf0] [c0000000010c7370] xive_teardown_cpu+0xa0/0xf0^M [ 37.691877][ T0] [c000000004653d30] [c0000000000fba5c] pseries_cpu_offline_self+0x5c/0x100^M [ 37.693882][ T0] [c000000004653da0] [c00000000005d2c4] arch_cpu_idle_dead+0x44/0x60^M [ 37.695739][ T0] [c000000004653dc0] [c0000000001c740c] do_idle+0x16c/0x3d0^M [ 37.697536][ T0] [c000000004653e70] [c0000000001c7a1c] cpu_startup_entry+0x3c/0x40^M [ 37.699694][ T0] [c000000004653ea0] [c00000000005ca20] start_secondary+0x6c0/0xb50^M [ 37.701742][ T0] [c000000004653f90] [c00000000000d054] start_secondary_prolog+0x10/0x14^M Tested on PPC VM of Open Source Lab of Oregon State University. Test results show that although "WARNING: suspicious RCU usage" has gone, and there are less "BUG: soft lockup" reports than the original kernel (9 vs 13), which sounds good ;-) But after my modification, results-rcutorture-kasan/SRCU-P/console.log.diags shows a new warning: [ 222.289242][ T110] WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 110 at kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:2806 rcu_torture_fwd_prog+0xc88/0xdd0 I guess above new warning also exits in original kernel, so I write a tiny test script as follows: #!/bin/sh COUNTER=0 while [ $COUNTER -lt 1000 ] ; do qemu-system-ppc64 -nographic -smp cores=8,threads=1 -net none -M pseries -nodefaults -device spapr-vscsi -serial file:/tmp/console.log -m 2G -kernel /tmp/vmlinux -append "debug_boot_weak_hash panic=-1 console=ttyS0 rcupdate.rcu_cpu_stall_suppress_at_boot=1 torture.disable_onoff_at_boot rcupdate.rcu_task_stall_timeout=30000 rcutorture.torture_type=srcud rcupdate.rcu_self_test=1 rcutorture.fwd_progress=3 srcutree.big_cpu_lim=5 rcutorture.onoff_interval=1000 rcutorture.onoff_holdoff=30 rcutorture.n_barrier_cbs=4 rcutorture.stat_interval=15 rcutorture.shutdown_secs=420 rcutorture.test_no_idle_hz=1 rcutorture.verbose=1"& qemu_pid=$! cd ~/next1/linux-next make clean #I use "make vmlinux -j 8" to create heavy background jitter make vmlinux -j 8 > /dev/null 2>&1 make_pid=$! wait $qemu_pid kill $qemu_pid kill $make_id if grep -q WARN /tmp/console.log; then echo $COUNTER > /tmp/counter exit fi COUNTER=$(($COUNTER+1)) done Above test shows that original kernel also warn about "WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 110 at kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c:2806 rcu_torture_fwd_prog+0xc88/0xdd0" But I am not very sure about my results, so I still add a [RFC] to my subject line. Thank all of you for your guidance and encouragement ;-) Cheers Zhouyi -- arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c index e0a7ac5db15d..e47098f00da1 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c@@ -64,10 +64,15 @@ static void pseries_cpu_offline_self(void) local_irq_disable(); idle_task_exit(); + /* prevent lockdep code from traveling RCU protected list + * when we are offline. + */ + lockdep_off(); if (xive_enabled()) xive_teardown_cpu(); else xics_teardown_cpu(); + lockdep_on(); unregister_slb_shadow(hwcpu); rtas_stop_self(); --2.25.1