On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 08:46:54AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > + Saravanna, Rafael, Lina > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 at 21:44, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 12:02:31PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote: > > > While booting linux mainline kernel on arm64 db410c this kernel warning > > > noticed. > > > > > > metadata: > > > git branch: master > > > git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git > > > git commit: f75aef392f869018f78cfedf3c320a6b3fcfda6b > > > git describe: v5.9-rc3 > > > make_kernelversion: 5.9.0-rc3 > > > kernel-config: > > > http://snapshots.linaro.org/openembedded/lkft/lkft/sumo/dragonboard-410c/lkft/linux-mainline/2965/config > > > > > > Boot log, > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Booting Linux on physical CPU 0x0000000000 [0x410fd030] > > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 5.9.0-rc3 (oe-user@oe-host) > > > (aarch64-linaro-linux-gcc (GCC) 7.3.0, GNU ld (GNU Binutils) > > > 2.30.0.20180208) #1 SMP PREEMPT Mon Aug 31 00:23:15 UTC 2020 > > > [ 0.000000] Machine model: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. APQ 8016 SBC > > > <> > > > [ 5.299090] sdhci: Secure Digital Host Controller Interface driver > > > [ 5.299140] sdhci: Copyright(c) Pierre Ossman > > > [ 5.304313] > > > [ 5.307771] Synopsys Designware Multimedia Card Interface Driver > > > [ 5.308588] ============================= > > > [ 5.308593] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > > > [ 5.316628] sdhci-pltfm: SDHCI platform and OF driver helper > > > [ 5.320052] 5.9.0-rc3 #1 Not tainted > > > [ 5.320057] ----------------------------- > > > [ 5.320063] /usr/src/kernel/include/trace/events/lock.h:37 > > > suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage! > > > [ 5.320068] > > > [ 5.320068] other info that might help us debug this: > > > [ 5.320068] > > > [ 5.320074] > > > [ 5.320074] rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 > > > [ 5.320078] RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state! > > > [ 5.320084] no locks held by swapper/0/0. > > > [ 5.320089] > > > [ 5.320089] stack backtrace: > > > [ 5.320098] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc3 #1 > > > [ 5.346354] sdhci_msm 7864900.sdhci: Got CD GPIO > > > [ 5.346446] Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. APQ 8016 SBC (DT) > > > [ 5.346452] Call trace: > > > [ 5.346463] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x1f8 > > > [ 5.346471] show_stack+0x2c/0x38 > > > [ 5.346480] dump_stack+0xec/0x15c > > > [ 5.346490] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xd4/0xf8 > > > [ 5.346499] lock_acquire+0x3d0/0x440 > > > [ 5.346510] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x80/0xb0 > > > [ 5.413118] __pm_runtime_suspend+0x34/0x1d0 > > > [ 5.417457] psci_enter_domain_idle_state+0x4c/0xb0 > > > [ 5.421795] cpuidle_enter_state+0xc8/0x610 > > > [ 5.426392] cpuidle_enter+0x3c/0x50 > > > [ 5.430561] call_cpuidle+0x44/0x80 > > > [ 5.434378] do_idle+0x240/0x2a0 > > > > RCU ignores CPUs in the idle loop, which means that you cannot use > > rcu_read_lock() from the idle loop without use of something like > > RCU_NONIDLE(). If this is due to event tracing, you should use the > > _rcuidle() variant of the event trace statement. > > In the runtime suspend path, the runtime PM core calls > device_links_read_lock() - if the device in question has any links to > suppliers (to allow them to be suspended too). > > device_links_read_lock() calls srcu_read_lock(). Except that it is perfectly legal to invoke srcu_read_lock() from the idle loop. The problem is instead rcu_read_lock() and similar. > It turns out that the device in question (the CPU device that is > attached to genpd) didn't have any links before - but that seems to > have changed, due to the work done by Saravana (links become created > on a per resource basis, parsed from DT during boot). > > > Note also that Peter Zijlstra (CCed) is working to shrink the portion > > of the idle loop that RCU ignores. Not sure that it covers your > > case, but it is worth checking. > > Thanks for letting me know. Let's see what Peter thinks about this then. > > Apologize for my ignorance, but from a cpuidle point of view, what > does it mean using RCU_NONIDLE()? I guess we should avoid RCU_NONIDLE > on bigger code paths? It means that as far as RCU (and only RCU) is concerned there is an exit from idle state for just long enough to execute RCU_NONIDLE()'s argument. This involves an atomic operation on both entry to and exit from RCU_NONIDLE(), which in most cases won't be noticeable. But in some cases you might (for example) want to enclose a loop in RCU_NONIDLE() rather than doing RCU_NONIDLE() on each pass through the loop. > I could add RCU_NONIDLE for the calls to pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() > and pm_runtime_get_sync() in psci_enter_domain_idle_state(). Perhaps > that's the easiest approach, at least to start with. > > Or do you have any other ideas? Here is the list, though it is early in the morning here: 1. RCU_NONIDLE(). 2. Peter's patch, if it turns out to hoist your code out of what RCU considers to be the idle loop. 3. If the problem is trace events, use the _rcuidle() variant of the trace event. Instead of trace_blah(), use trace_blah_rcuidle(). 4. Switch from RCU (as in rcu_read_lock()) to SRCU (as in srcu_read_lock()). 5. Take Peter's patch a step further, moving the rcu_idle_enter() and rcu_idle_exit() calls as needed. But please keep in mind that these two functions require that irqs be disabled by their callers. 6. If RCU_NONIDLE() in inconvenient due to early exits and such, you could use the rcu_irq_enter_irqson() and rcu_irq_exit_irqson() functions that it calls. Do any of those help? Thanx, Paul
