- Add a SPDX header; - Add a document title; - Some whitespace fixes and new line breaks; - Mark literal blocks as such; - Add it to RCU/index.rst. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/RCU/index.rst | 1 + .../{lockdep-splat.txt => lockdep-splat.rst} | 99 ++++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) rename Documentation/RCU/{lockdep-splat.txt => lockdep-splat.rst} (54%) diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst index c1ba4d130bb0..430a37132b2c 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/RCU/index.rst @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ RCU concepts arrayRCU checklist + lockdep-splat rcubarrier rcu_dereference whatisRCU diff --git a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.rst similarity index 54% rename from Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt rename to Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.rst index b8096316fd11..2a5c79db57dc 100644 --- a/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.txt +++ b/Documentation/RCU/lockdep-splat.rst @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +================= +Lockdep-RCU Splat +================= + Lockdep-RCU was added to the Linux kernel in early 2010 (http://lwn.net/Articles/371986/). This facility checks for some common misuses of the RCU API, most notably using one of the rcu_dereference() @@ -12,55 +18,54 @@ overwriting or worse. There can of course be false positives, this being the real world and all that. So let's look at an example RCU lockdep splat from 3.0-rc5, one that -has long since been fixed: +has long since been fixed:: -============================= -WARNING: suspicious RCU usage ------------------------------ -block/cfq-iosched.c:2776 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage! + ============================= + WARNING: suspicious RCU usage + ----------------------------- + block/cfq-iosched.c:2776 suspicious rcu_dereference_protected() usage! -other info that might help us debug this: +other info that might help us debug this:: + rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 + 3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552: + #0: (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>] + scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150 + #1: (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>] + elevator_exit+0x22/0x60 + #2: (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>] + cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190 -rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 -3 locks held by scsi_scan_6/1552: - #0: (&shost->scan_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8145efca>] -scsi_scan_host_selected+0x5a/0x150 - #1: (&eq->sysfs_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812a5032>] -elevator_exit+0x22/0x60 - #2: (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff812b6233>] -cfq_exit_queue+0x43/0x190 + stack backtrace: + Pid: 1552, comm: scsi_scan_6 Not tainted 3.0.0-rc5 #17 + Call Trace: + [<ffffffff810abb9b>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xbb/0xc0 + [<ffffffff812b6139>] __cfq_exit_single_io_context+0xe9/0x120 + [<ffffffff812b626c>] cfq_exit_queue+0x7c/0x190 + [<ffffffff812a5046>] elevator_exit+0x36/0x60 + [<ffffffff812a802a>] blk_cleanup_queue+0x4a/0x60 + [<ffffffff8145cc09>] scsi_free_queue+0x9/0x10 + [<ffffffff81460944>] __scsi_remove_device+0x84/0xd0 + [<ffffffff8145dca3>] scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0x353/0xb10 + [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0 + [<ffffffff817d98ed>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x80 + [<ffffffff8145e722>] __scsi_scan_target+0x112/0x680 + [<ffffffff812c690d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x3a/0x3c + [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0 + [<ffffffff812bcc60>] ? kobject_del+0x40/0x40 + [<ffffffff8145ed16>] scsi_scan_channel+0x86/0xb0 + [<ffffffff8145f0b0>] scsi_scan_host_selected+0x140/0x150 + [<ffffffff8145f149>] do_scsi_scan_host+0x89/0x90 + [<ffffffff8145f170>] do_scan_async+0x20/0x160 + [<ffffffff8145f150>] ? do_scsi_scan_host+0x90/0x90 + [<ffffffff810975b6>] kthread+0xa6/0xb0 + [<ffffffff817db154>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 + [<ffffffff81066430>] ? finish_task_switch+0x80/0x110 + [<ffffffff817d9c04>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe + [<ffffffff81097510>] ? __kthread_init_worker+0x70/0x70 + [<ffffffff817db150>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb -stack backtrace: -Pid: 1552, comm: scsi_scan_6 Not tainted 3.0.0-rc5 #17 -Call Trace: - [<ffffffff810abb9b>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0xbb/0xc0 - [<ffffffff812b6139>] __cfq_exit_single_io_context+0xe9/0x120 - [<ffffffff812b626c>] cfq_exit_queue+0x7c/0x190 - [<ffffffff812a5046>] elevator_exit+0x36/0x60 - [<ffffffff812a802a>] blk_cleanup_queue+0x4a/0x60 - [<ffffffff8145cc09>] scsi_free_queue+0x9/0x10 - [<ffffffff81460944>] __scsi_remove_device+0x84/0xd0 - [<ffffffff8145dca3>] scsi_probe_and_add_lun+0x353/0xb10 - [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0 - [<ffffffff817d98ed>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x80 - [<ffffffff8145e722>] __scsi_scan_target+0x112/0x680 - [<ffffffff812c690d>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_thunk+0x3a/0x3c - [<ffffffff817da069>] ? error_exit+0x29/0xb0 - [<ffffffff812bcc60>] ? kobject_del+0x40/0x40 - [<ffffffff8145ed16>] scsi_scan_channel+0x86/0xb0 - [<ffffffff8145f0b0>] scsi_scan_host_selected+0x140/0x150 - [<ffffffff8145f149>] do_scsi_scan_host+0x89/0x90 - [<ffffffff8145f170>] do_scan_async+0x20/0x160 - [<ffffffff8145f150>] ? do_scsi_scan_host+0x90/0x90 - [<ffffffff810975b6>] kthread+0xa6/0xb0 - [<ffffffff817db154>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 - [<ffffffff81066430>] ? finish_task_switch+0x80/0x110 - [<ffffffff817d9c04>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe - [<ffffffff81097510>] ? __kthread_init_worker+0x70/0x70 - [<ffffffff817db150>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb - -Line 2776 of block/cfq-iosched.c in v3.0-rc5 is as follows: +Line 2776 of block/cfq-iosched.c in v3.0-rc5 is as follows:: if (rcu_dereference(ioc->ioc_data) == cic) { @@ -70,7 +75,7 @@ case. Instead, we hold three locks, one of which might be RCU related. And maybe that lock really does protect this reference. If so, the fix is to inform RCU, perhaps by changing __cfq_exit_single_io_context() to take the struct request_queue "q" from cfq_exit_queue() as an argument, -which would permit us to invoke rcu_dereference_protected as follows: +which would permit us to invoke rcu_dereference_protected as follows:: if (rcu_dereference_protected(ioc->ioc_data, lockdep_is_held(&q->queue_lock)) == cic) { @@ -85,7 +90,7 @@ On the other hand, perhaps we really do need an RCU read-side critical section. In this case, the critical section must span the use of the return value from rcu_dereference(), or at least until there is some reference count incremented or some such. One way to handle this is to -add rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() as follows: +add rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() as follows:: rcu_read_lock(); if (rcu_dereference(ioc->ioc_data) == cic) { @@ -102,7 +107,7 @@ above lockdep-RCU splat. But in this particular case, we don't actually dereference the pointer returned from rcu_dereference(). Instead, that pointer is just compared to the cic pointer, which means that the rcu_dereference() can be replaced -by rcu_access_pointer() as follows: +by rcu_access_pointer() as follows:: if (rcu_access_pointer(ioc->ioc_data) == cic) { -- 2.25.2