Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Sep 2021 05:55:39 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: Confusing lockdep splat |
| |
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 08:30:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 9/24/21 6:43 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 05:41:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > On 9/24/21 5:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > I got the lockdep splat below from an SRCU-T rcutorture run, which uses > > > > a !SMP !PREEMPT kernel. This is a random event, and about half the time > > > > it happens within an hour or two. My reproducer (on current -rcu "dev" > > > > branch for a 16-CPU system) is: > > > > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 16 --configs "16*SRCU-T" --duration 7200 > > > > > > > > My points of confusion are as follows: > > > > > > > > 1. The locks involved in this deadlock cycle are irq-disabled > > > > raw spinlocks. The claimed deadlock cycle uses two CPUs. > > > > There is only one CPU. There is no possibility of preemption > > > > or interrupts. So how can this deadlock actually happen? > > > > > > > > 2. If there was more than one CPU, then yes, there would be > > > > a deadlock. The PI lock is acquired by the wakeup code after > > > > acquiring the workqueue lock, and rcutorture tests the new ability > > > > of the scheduler to hold the PI lock across rcu_read_unlock(), > > > > and while it is at it, across the rest of the unlock primitives. > > > > > > > > But if there was more than one CPU, Tree SRCU would be used > > > > instead of Tiny SRCU, and there would be no wakeup invoked from > > > > srcu_read_unlock(). > > > > > > > > Given only one CPU, there is no way to complete the deadlock > > > > cycle. > > > > > > > > For now, I am working around this by preventing rcutorture from holding > > > > the PI lock across Tiny srcu_read_unlock(). > > > > > > > > Am I missing something subtle here? > > > I would say that the lockdep code just doesn't have enough intelligence to > > > identify that deadlock is not possible in this special case. There are > > > certainly false positives, and it can be hard to get rid of them. > > Would it make sense for lockdep to filter out reports involving more > > than one CPU unless there is at least one sleeplock in the cycle? > > > > Of course, it gets more complicated when interrupts are involved... > > Actually, lockdep keeps track of all the possible lock orderings and put out > a splat whenever these lock orderings suggest that a circular deadlock is > possible. It doesn't keep track if a lock is sleepable or not. Also lockdep > deals with lock classes each of which can have many instances. So all the > pi_lock's in different task_struct's are all treated as the same lock from > lockdep's perspective. We can't treat all different instances separately or > we will run out of lockdep table space very quickly.
We shouldn't need additional classes, but only instead a marking of a given lock class to tell whether or not it was a sleeplock. Either way, I now have a workaround within Tiny SRCU that appears to handle this case, so it is not as urgent as it might be.
Thanx, Paul
| |