2010/8/5 John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org>: > On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:59:37 am m...@freebsd.org wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:20:31 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote: >> >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:46:16 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> >> > On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Baldwin wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39:02 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote: >> >> >> >> > We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast() >> >> >> >> > indicates the sched lock is still held, but the place it claims > it was >> >> >> >> > held by is in fact sometimes not possible to keep the lock, like: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > thread_lock(td); >> >> >> >> > td->td_flags &= ~TDF_SELECT; >> >> >> >> > thread_unlock(td); >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > What I was wondering is, even though the assembly I see in > objdump -S >> >> >> >> > for witness_warn has the increment of td_pinned before the > PCPU_GET: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db210: 65 48 8b 1c 25 00 00 mov %gs:0x0,%rbx >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db217: 00 00 >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db219: ff 83 04 01 00 00 incl 0x104(%rbx) >> >> >> >> > * Pin the thread in order to avoid problems with thread > migration. >> >> >> >> > * Once that all verifies are passed about spinlocks > ownership, >> >> >> >> > * the thread is in a safe path and it can be unpinned. >> >> >> >> > */ >> >> >> >> > sched_pin(); >> >> >> >> > lock_list = PCPU_GET(spinlocks); >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db21f: 65 48 8b 04 25 48 00 mov %gs:0x48,%rax >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db226: 00 00 >> >> >> >> > if (lock_list != NULL && lock_list->ll_count != 0) { >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db228: 48 85 c0 test %rax,%rax >> >> >> >> > * Pin the thread in order to avoid problems with thread > migration. >> >> >> >> > * Once that all verifies are passed about spinlocks > ownership, >> >> >> >> > * the thread is in a safe path and it can be unpinned. >> >> >> >> > */ >> >> >> >> > sched_pin(); >> >> >> >> > lock_list = PCPU_GET(spinlocks); >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db22b: 48 89 85 f0 fe ff ff mov > %rax,-0x110(%rbp) >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db232: 48 89 85 f8 fe ff ff mov > %rax,-0x108(%rbp) >> >> >> >> > if (lock_list != NULL && lock_list->ll_count != 0) { >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db239: 0f 84 ff 00 00 00 je > ffffffff802db33e >> >> >> >> > <witness_warn+0x30e> >> >> >> >> > ffffffff802db23f: 44 8b 60 50 mov 0x50(%rax), > %r12d >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > is it possible for the hardware to do any re-ordering here? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > The reason I'm suspicious is not just that the code doesn't have > a >> >> >> >> > lock leak at the indicated point, but in one instance I can see > in the >> >> >> >> > dump that the lock_list local from witness_warn is from the pcpu >> >> >> >> > structure for CPU 0 (and I was warned about sched lock 0), but > the >> >> >> >> > thread id in panic_cpu is 2. So clearly the thread was being > migrated >> >> >> >> > right around panic time. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > This is the amd64 kernel on stable/7. I'm not sure exactly what > kind >> >> >> >> > of hardware; it's a 4-way Intel chip from about 3 or 4 years ago > IIRC. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > So... do we need some kind of barrier in the code for sched_pin() > for >> >> >> >> > it to really do what it claims? Could the hardware have re- > ordered >> >> >> >> > the "mov %gs:0x48,%rax" PCPU_GET to before the sched_pin() >> >> >> >> > increment? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hmmm, I think it might be able to because they refer to different > locations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note this rule in section 8.2.2 of Volume 3A: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> • Reads may be reordered with older writes to different locations > but not >> >> >> >> with older writes to the same location. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is certainly true that sparc64 could reorder with RMO. I > believe ia64 >> >> >> >> could reorder as well. Since sched_pin/unpin are frequently used > to provide >> >> >> >> this sort of synchronization, we could use memory barriers in > pin/unpin >> >> >> >> like so: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sched_pin() >> >> >> >> { >> >> >> >> td->td_pinned = atomic_load_acq_int(&td->td_pinned) + 1; >> >> >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sched_unpin() >> >> >> >> { >> >> >> >> atomic_store_rel_int(&td->td_pinned, td->td_pinned - 1); >> >> >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We could also just use atomic_add_acq_int() and > atomic_sub_rel_int(), but they >> >> >> >> are slightly more heavyweight, though it would be more clear what > is happening >> >> >> >> I think. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > However, to actually get a race you'd have to have an interrupt fire > and >> >> >> > migrate you so that the speculative read was from the other CPU. > However, I >> >> >> > don't think the speculative read would be preserved in that case. > The CPU >> >> >> > has to return to a specific PC when it returns from the interrupt > and it has >> >> >> > no way of storing the state for what speculative reordering it might > be >> >> >> > doing, so presumably it is thrown away? I suppose it is possible > that it >> >> >> > actually retires both instructions (but reordered) and then returns > to the PC >> >> >> > value after the read of listlocks after the interrupt. However, in > that case >> >> >> > the scheduler would not migrate as it would see td_pinned != 0. To > get the >> >> >> > race you have to have the interrupt take effect prior to modifying > td_pinned, >> >> >> > so I think the processor would have to discard the reordered read of >> >> >> > listlocks so it could safely resume execution at the 'incl' > instruction. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The other nit there on x86 at least is that the incl instruction is > doing >> >> >> > both a read and a write and another rule in the section 8.2.2 is > this: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > • Reads are not reordered with other reads. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That would seem to prevent the read of listlocks from passing the > read of >> >> >> > td_pinned in the incl instruction on x86. >> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder how that's interpreted in the microcode, though? I.e. if the >> >> >> incr instruction decodes to load, add, store, does the h/w allow the >> >> >> later reads to pass the final store? >> >> > >> >> > Well, the architecture is defined in terms of the ISA, not the > microcode, per >> >> > se, so I think it would have to treat the read for the incl as being an > earlier >> >> > read than 'spinlocks'. >> >> > >> >> >> I added the following: >> >> >> >> >> >> sched_pin(); >> >> >> lock_list = PCPU_GET(spinlocks); >> >> >> if (lock_list != NULL && lock_list->ll_count != 0) { >> >> >> + /* XXX debug for bug 67957 */ >> >> >> + mfence(); >> >> >> + lle = PCPU_GET(spinlocks); >> >> >> + if (lle != lock_list) { >> >> >> + panic("Bug 67957: had lock list %p, now %p\n", >> >> >> + lock_list, lle); >> >> >> + } >> >> >> + /* XXX end debug */ >> >> >> sched_unpin(); >> >> >> >> >> >> /* >> >> >> >> >> >> ... and the panic triggered. I think it's more likely that some >> >> >> barrier is needed in sched_pin() than that %gs is getting corrupted >> >> >> but can always be dereferenced. >> >> > >> >> > Actually, I would beg to differ in that case. If PCPU_GET(spinlocks) >> >> > returns non-NULL, then it means that you hold a spin lock, >> >> >> >> ll_count is 0 for the "correct" pc_spinlocks and non-zero for the >> >> "wrong" one, though. So I think it can be non-NULL but the current >> >> thread/CPU doesn't hold a spinlock. >> > >> > Hmm, does the 'lock_list' pointer value in the dump match 'lock_list' >> > from another CPU? >> >> Yes: >> >> (gdb) p panic_cpu >> $9 = 2 >> (gdb) p dumptid >> $12 = 100751 >> (gdb) p cpuhead.slh_first->pc_allcpu.sle_next->pc_curthread->td_tid >> $14 = 100751 >> >> (gdb) p *cpuhead.slh_first->pc_allcpu.sle_next >> $6 = { >> pc_curthread = 0xffffff00716d6960, >> pc_cpuid = 2, >> pc_spinlocks = 0xffffffff80803198, >> >> (gdb) p lock_list >> $2 = (struct lock_list_entry *) 0xffffffff80803fb0 >> >> (gdb) p *cpuhead.slh_first->pc_allcpu.sle_next->pc_allcpu.sle_next- >>pc_allcpu.sle_next >> $8 = { >> pc_curthread = 0xffffff0005479960, >> pc_cpuid = 0, >> pc_spinlocks = 0xffffffff80803fb0, >> >> I.e. we're dumping on CPU 2, but the lock_list pointer that was saved >> in the dump matches that of CPU 0. > > Can you print out the tid's for the two curthreads? It's not impossible that > the thread migrated after calling panic. In fact we force threads to CPU 0 > during shutdown.
The problem here is not migration but the fact that witness thinks there is a spinlock held when it is not true (we are sure the code is not bogus, right?). As long as a thread staying on a cpu has a spinlock it can't be switched out, we should rule out any migration specific problem and the only way the first thing that cames to my mind is a stale %gs. Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"