On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 07:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> I'm not getting it.
> 
> I moved task_numa_free() from one interrupts enabled spot to another.
> But, with numa=fake=4 and lockdep enabled, not only does lockdep gripe,
> my little box locks up on splat.  Saying spin_lock/unlock_irq() did the
> expected, just moved lockdep gripe to task_numa_fault().
> 
> 
> > [ 2590.270067]  Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 2590.270067]
> > [ 2590.270067]        CPU0                    CPU1
> > [ 2590.270067]        ----                    ----
> > [ 2590.270067]   lock(&(&grp->lock)->rlock);
> > [ 2590.270067]                                local_irq_disable();
> > [ 2590.270067]                                
> > lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
> > [ 2590.270067]                                lock(&(&grp->lock)->rlock);
> > [ 2590.270067]   <Interrupt>
> > [ 2590.270067]     lock(&(&new_timer->it_lock)->rlock);
> > [ 2590.270067]
> > [ 2590.270067]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> Ok, so how did I manage that HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe?

Think I'll turn lockdep off, and make context switches take a good long
while after finish_lock_switch(), but meanwhile, this made it happy.

Sasha reports that lockdep claims 156654f491dd8d52687a5fbe1637f472a52ce75b made
numa_group.lock interrupt unsafe.  While I don't see how that could be given the
commit in question moved task_numa_free() from one irq enabled region to 
another,
the below does make both gripes and lockup upon gripe with numa=fake=4 go away.

Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.le...@oracle.com>
Not-signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <bitbuc...@online.de>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c  |   12 +++++++-----
 kernel/sched/sched.h |    9 +++++++++
 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1497,7 +1497,7 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct t
        /* If the task is part of a group prevent parallel updates to group 
stats */
        if (p->numa_group) {
                group_lock = &p->numa_group->lock;
-               spin_lock(group_lock);
+               spin_lock_irq(group_lock);
        }
 
        /* Find the node with the highest number of faults */
@@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ static void task_numa_placement(struct t
                        }
                }
 
-               spin_unlock(group_lock);
+               spin_unlock_irq(group_lock);
        }
 
        /* Preferred node as the node with the most faults */
@@ -1677,7 +1677,8 @@ static void task_numa_group(struct task_
        if (!join)
                return;
 
-       double_lock(&my_grp->lock, &grp->lock);
+       BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
+       double_lock_irq(&my_grp->lock, &grp->lock);
 
        for (i = 0; i < NR_NUMA_HINT_FAULT_STATS * nr_node_ids; i++) {
                my_grp->faults[i] -= p->numa_faults_memory[i];
@@ -1692,6 +1693,7 @@ static void task_numa_group(struct task_
 
        spin_unlock(&my_grp->lock);
        spin_unlock(&grp->lock);
+       local_irq_enable();
 
        rcu_assign_pointer(p->numa_group, grp);
 
@@ -1710,14 +1712,14 @@ void task_numa_free(struct task_struct *
        void *numa_faults = p->numa_faults_memory;
 
        if (grp) {
-               spin_lock(&grp->lock);
+               spin_lock_irq(&grp->lock);
                for (i = 0; i < NR_NUMA_HINT_FAULT_STATS * nr_node_ids; i++)
                        grp->faults[i] -= p->numa_faults_memory[i];
                grp->total_faults -= p->total_numa_faults;
 
                list_del(&p->numa_entry);
                grp->nr_tasks--;
-               spin_unlock(&grp->lock);
+               spin_unlock_irq(&grp->lock);
                rcu_assign_pointer(p->numa_group, NULL);
                put_numa_group(grp);
        }
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1388,6 +1388,15 @@ static inline void double_lock(spinlock_
        spin_lock_nested(l2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 }
 
+static inline void double_lock_irq(spinlock_t *l1, spinlock_t *l2)
+{
+       if (l1 > l2)
+               swap(l1, l2);
+
+       spin_lock_irq(l1);
+       spin_lock_nested(l2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
+}
+
 static inline void double_raw_lock(raw_spinlock_t *l1, raw_spinlock_t *l2)
 {
        if (l1 > l2)


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to