Hi Partha / Ying,

I will try out the patch and let you know how it goes.
I also note about providing the other CPU core dumps - in one of my cases I
didn't have them but in others I did but
they were interleaved and so were difficult to interpret.

Thanks for getting a patch together so quickly.

JT

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Parthasarathy Bhuvaragan <
parthasarathy.bhuvara...@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi Ying / John,
>
> The soft lock is the call chain of tipc_nametbl_withdraw(), when it
> performs the tipc_conn_kref_release() as it tries to grab nametbl_lock
> again while holding it already.
> > tipc_nametbl_withdraw
> >   spin_lock_bh(&tn->nametbl_lock);
> >   tipc_nametbl_remove_publ
> >      spin_lock_bh(&seq->lock);
> >      tipc_nameseq_remove_publ
> >        tipc_subscrp_report_overlap
> >          tipc_subscrp_send_event
> >             tipc_conn_sendmsg
> << Here, the (test_bit(CF_CONNECTED, &con->flags)) Fails, leading to the
> else case where do do a conn_put() and that triggers the cleanup as
> refcount reached 0. Leading the call chain below : >>
> tipc_conn_kref_release
>    tipc_sock_release
>      tipc_conn_release
>         tipc_subscrb_delete
>            tipc_subscrp_delete
>               tipc_nametbl_unsubscribe
>                  spin_lock_bh(&tn->nametbl_lock);  << !! Soft Lockup >>
>
> One cause is that tipc_exit_net() calls first calls tipc_topsrv_stop() and
> then tipc_nametbl_withdraw() in scope of tipc_net_stop().
>
> The above chain will only occur in a narrow window for a given connection:
> CPU#1:
> tipc_nametbl_withdraw() manages to perform tipc_conn_lookup() and steps
> the refcount to 2, while in CPU#2 the following occurs:
> CPU#2:
> tipc_server_stop() calls tipc_close_conn(con). This performs a conn_put()
> decrementing refcount to 1.
> Now, CPU#1 continues and detects that the connection is not CF_CONNECTED
> and does a conn_put(), triggering the release callback.
>
> Before commit 333f796235a527, the above wont happen.
>
> /Partha
>
>
> On 11/15/2016 04:11 PM, Xue, Ying wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Regarding the stack trace you provided below, I get the two potential
>> call chains:
>>
>> tipc_nametbl_withdraw
>>   spin_lock_bh(&tn->nametbl_lock);
>>   tipc_nametbl_remove_publ
>>      spin_lock_bh(&seq->lock);
>>      tipc_nameseq_remove_publ
>>        tipc_subscrp_report_overlap
>>          tipc_subscrp_send_event
>>             tipc_conn_sendmsg
>>                spin_lock_bh(&con->outqueue_lock);
>>                list_add_tail(&e->list, &con->outqueue);
>>
>>
>> tipc_topsrv_stop
>>   tipc_server_stop
>>     tipc_close_conn
>>       kernel_sock_shutdown
>>         tipc_subscrb_delete
>>           spin_lock_bh(&subscriber->lock);
>>           tipc_nametbl_unsubscribe(sub);
>>            spin_lock_bh(&tn->nametbl_lock);
>>
>> Although I suspect this is a revert lock issue leading to the soft
>> lockup, I am still unable to understand which lock together with
>> nametbl_lock is taken reversely on the two different paths above.
>> However, you just gave us the log printed on CPU#2, but the logs
>> outputted by other cores are also important.  So if possible, please share
>> them with us.
>>
>> By the way, I agree with you, and it seems that commit 333f796235a527 is
>> related to the soft lockup.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ying
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Thompson [mailto:thompa....@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:01 AM
>> To: tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>> Subject: [tipc-discussion] v4.7: soft lockup when releasing a socket
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am seeing an occasional kernel soft lockup.  I have TIPC v4.7 and the
>> kernel dump occurs when the system is going down for a reboot.
>>
>> The kernel dump is:
>>
>> <0>NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 23s! [exfx:1474]
>> <6>Modules linked in: tipc jitterentropy_rng echainiv drbg
>> platform_driver(O) ipifwd(PO)
>> ...
>> <6>
>> <6>GPR00: c15333e8 a4e0fb80 a4ee3600 a51748ac 00000000 ae475024 a537feec
>> fffffffd
>> <6>GPR08: a2197408 00000001 00000001 00000004 80691c00 <6>NIP [80691c40]
>> _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x40/0x70 <6>LR [c1534f30] 
>> tipc_nametbl_unsubscribe+0x50/0x120
>> [tipc] <6>Call Trace:
>> <6>[a4e0fba0] [c15333e8] tipc_named_reinit+0xf8/0x820 [tipc]
>> <6>[a4e0fbb0] [c15336a0] tipc_named_reinit+0x3b0/0x820 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fbd0]
>> [c1540bac] tipc_nl_publ_dump+0x50c/0xed0 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fc00] [c154164c]
>> tipc_conn_sendmsg+0xdc/0x170 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fc30] [c1533c9c]
>> tipc_subscrp_report_overlap+0xbc/0xd0 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fc70] [c153425c]
>> tipc_topsrv_stop+0x45c/0x4f0 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fca0] [c1534788]
>> tipc_nametbl_remove_publ+0x58/0x110 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fcd0] [c1534c48]
>> tipc_nametbl_withdraw+0x68/0x140 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fd00] [c153cc24]
>> tipc_nl_node_dump_link+0x1904/0x45d0 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fd30] [c153d838]
>> tipc_nl_node_dump_link+0x2518/0x45d0 [tipc] <6>[a4e0fd70] [804f2870]
>> sock_release+0x30/0xf0 <6>[a4e0fd80] [804f2944] sock_close+0x14/0x30
>> <6>[a4e0fd90] [80105844] __fput+0x94/0x200 <6>[a4e0fdb0] [8003dca4]
>> task_work_run+0xd4/0x100 <6>[a4e0fdd0] [80023620] do_exit+0x280/0x980
>> <6>[a4e0fe10] [80024c48] do_group_exit+0x48/0xb0 <6>[a4e0fe30] [80030344]
>> get_signal+0x244/0x4f0 <6>[a4e0fe80] [80007734] do_signal+0x34/0x1c0
>> <6>[a4e0ff30] [800079a8] do_notify_resume+0x68/0x80 <6>[a4e0ff40]
>> [8000fa1c] do_user_signal+0x74/0xc4
>>
>>
>> From the stack dump it looks like tipc_named_reinit is trying to
>>>
>> acquire nametbl_lock.
>>
>> From looking at the call chain I can see that tipc_conn_sendmsg can
>>>
>> send up calling conn_put
>>
>> which will go on and call the tipc_named_reinit via tipc_sock_release.
>>
>> As tipc_nametbl_withdraw (from the stack dump) has already acquired the
>> nametbl_lock, tipc_named_reinit
>>
>> cannot get it and so the process hangs.
>>
>>
>> The call to tipc_sock_release (added in Commit 333f796235a527
>> <http://git.atlnz.lc/cgit/cgit.cgi/upstream_imports/linux-
>> stable.git/commit/?id=333f796235a52727db7e0a13888045f3aa3d5335>)
>> seems to have changed the behaviour
>>
>> such that it tries to do a lot more when shutting the connection down.
>>
>>
>> If there is other information I can provide please let me know.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> John
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> tipc-discussion mailing list
>> tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> tipc-discussion mailing list
>> tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion

Reply via email to