On 11/20/2019 1:08 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 03:17:07AM +0000, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
For the tasks waiting in exp_wq inside exp_funnel_lock(),
there is a chance that they might be indefinitely blocked
in below scenario:
1. There is a task waiting on exp sequence 0b'100' inside
exp_funnel_lock(). This task blocks at wq index 1.
synchronize_rcu_expedited()
s = 0b'100'
exp_funnel_lock()
wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3]
2. The expedited grace period (which above task blocks for)
completes and task (task1) holding exp_mutex queues
worker and schedules out.
synchronize_rcu_expedited()
s = 0b'100'
queue_work(rcu_gp_wq, &rew.rew_work)
wake_up_worker()
schedule()
3. kworker A picks up the queued work and completes the exp gp
sequence and then blocks on exp_wake_mutex, which is held
by another kworker, which is doing wakeups for expedited_sequence
0.
rcu_exp_wait_wake()
rcu_exp_wait_wake()
rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence is incremented
// to 0b'100'
mutex_lock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex)
4. task1 does not enter wait queue, as sync_exp_work_done() returns true,
and releases exp_mutex.
wait_event(rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3],
sync_exp_work_done(rsp, s));
mutex_unlock(&rsp->exp_mutex);
5. Next exp GP completes, and sequence number is incremented:
rcu_exp_wait_wake()
rcu_exp_wait_wake()
rcu_exp_gp_seq_end(rsp) // rsp->expedited_sequence = 0b'200'
6. kworker A acquires exp_wake_mutex. As it uses current
expedited_sequence, it wakes up workers from wrong wait queue
index - it should have worken wait queue corresponding to
0b'100' sequence, but wakes up the ones for 0b'200' sequence.
This results in task at step 1 indefinitely blocked.
rcu_exp_wait_wake()
wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rsp->expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend, as scsi
device was stuck in _synchronize_rcu_expedited().
schedule()
synchronize_rcu_expedited()
synchronize_rcu()
scsi_device_quiesce()
scsi_bus_suspend()
dpm_run_callback()
__device_suspend()
Fix this by using the correct exp sequence number, the one which
owner of the exp_mutex initiated and passed to kworker,
to index the wait queue, inside rcu_exp_wait_wake().
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Queued, thank you!
I reworked the commit message to make it easier to follow the sequence
of events. Please see below and let me know if I messed anything up.
Thanx, Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commit d887fd2a66861f51ed93b5dde894b9646a5569dd
Author: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Nov 19 03:17:07 2019 +0000
rcu: Fix missed wakeup of exp_wq waiters
Tasks waiting within exp_funnel_lock() for an expedited grace period to
elapse can be starved due to the following sequence of events:
1. Tasks A and B both attempt to start an expedited grace
period at about the same time. This grace period will have
completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
->expedited_sequence field are 0b'0100', for example, when the
initial value of this counter is zero. Task A wins, and thus
does the actual work of starting the grace period, including
acquiring the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the
counter to 0b'0001'.
2. Because task B lost the race to start the grace period, it
waits on ->expedited_sequence to reach 0b'0100' inside of
exp_funnel_lock(). This task therefore blocks on the rcu_node
structure's ->exp_wq[1] field, keeping in mind that the
end-of-grace-period value of ->expedited_sequence (0b'0100')
is shifted down two bits before indexing the ->exp_wq[] field.
3. Task C attempts to start another expedited grace period,
but blocks on ->exp_mutex, which is still held by Task A.
4. The aforementioned expedited grace period completes, so that
->expedited_sequence now has the value 0b'0100'. A kworker task
therefore acquires the rcu_state structure's ->exp_wake_mutex
and starts awakening any tasks waiting for this grace period.
5. One of the first tasks awakened happens to be Task A. Task A
therefore releases the rcu_state structure's ->exp_mutex,
which allows Task C to start the next expedited grace period,
which causes the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
->expedited_sequence field to become 0b'0101'.
6. Task C's expedited grace period completes, so that the lower four
bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now
become 0b'1000'.
7. The kworker task from step 4 above continues its wakeups.
Unfortunately, the wake_up_all() refetches the rcu_state
structure's .expedited_sequence field:
This might not be true. I think wake_up_all(), which internally calls
__wake_up(), will use a single wq_head for doing all wakeups. So, a
single .expedited_sequence value would be used to get wq_head.
void __wake_up(struct wait_queue_head *wq_head, ...)
However, below sequence of events would result in problem:
1. Tasks A starts an expedited grace period at about the same time.
This grace period will have completed when the lower four bits
of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field are 0b'0100',
for example, when the initial value of this counter is zero.
Task A wins, acquires the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and
sets the counter to 0b'0001'.
2. The aforementioned expedited grace period completes, so that
->expedited_sequence now has the value 0b'0100'. A kworker task
therefore acquires the rcu_state structure's ->exp_wake_mutex
and starts awakening any tasks waiting for this grace period.
This kworker gets preempted while unlocking wq_head lock
wake_up_all()
__wake_up()
__wake_up_common_lock()
spin_unlock_irqrestore()
__raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore()
preempt_enable()
__preempt_schedule()
3. One of the first tasks awakened happens to be Task A. Task A
therefore releases the rcu_state structure's ->exp_mutex,
4. Tasks B and C both attempt to start an expedited grace
period at about the same time. This grace period will have
completed when the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
->expedited_sequence field are 0b'1000'. Task B wins, and thus
does the actual work of starting the grace period, including
acquiring the rcu_state structure's .exp_mutex and sets the
counter to 0b'0101'.
5. Because task C lost the race to start the grace period, it
waits on ->expedited_sequence to reach 0b'1000' inside of
exp_funnel_lock(). This task therefore blocks on the rcu_node
structure's ->exp_wq[2] field, keeping in mind that the
end-of-grace-period value of ->expedited_sequence (0b'1000')
is shifted down two bits before indexing the ->exp_wq[] field.
6. Task B queues work to complete expedited grace period. This
task is preempted just before wait_event call. Kworker task picks
up the work queued by task B and and completes grace period, so
that the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
->expedited_sequence field now become 0b'1000'. This kworker starts
waiting on the exp_wake_mutex, which is owned by kworker doing
wakeups for expedited sequence initiated by task A.
7. Task B schedules in and finds its expedited sequence snapshot has
completed; so, it does not enter waitq and releases exp_mutex. This
allows Task D to start the next expedited grace period,
which causes the lower four bits of the rcu_state structure's
->expedited_sequence field to become 0b'1001'.
8. Task D's expedited grace period completes, so that the lower four
bits of the rcu_state structure's ->expedited_sequence field now
become 0b'1100'.
9. kworker from step 2 is scheduled in and releases exp_wake_mutex;
kworker correspnding to Task B's expedited grace period acquires
exp_wake_mutex and starts wakeups. Unfortunately, it used the
rcu_state structure's .expedited_sequence field for determining
the waitq index.
wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
This results in the wakeup being applied to the rcu_node
structure's ->exp_wq[3] field, which is unfortunate given that
Task C is instead waiting on ->exp_wq[2].
wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
This results in the wakeup being applied to the rcu_node
structure's ->exp_wq[2] field, which is unfortunate given that
Task B is instead waiting on ->exp_wq[1].
On a busy system, no harm is done (or at least no permanent harm is done).
Some later expedited grace period will redo the wakeup. But on a quiet
system, such as many embedded systems, it might be a good long time before
there was another expedited grace period. On such embedded systems,
this situation could therefore result in a system hang.
This issue manifested as DPM device timeout during suspend (which
usually qualifies as a quiet time) due to a SCSI device being stuck in
_synchronize_rcu_expedited(), with the following stack trace:
schedule()
synchronize_rcu_expedited()
synchronize_rcu()
scsi_device_quiesce()
scsi_bus_suspend()
dpm_run_callback()
__device_suspend()
This commit therefore prevents such delays, timeouts, and hangs by
making rcu_exp_wait_wake() use its "s" argument consistently instead of
refetching from rcu_state.expedited_sequence.
Do we need a "fixes" tag here?
Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
index 6ce598d..4433d00a 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_exp.h
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ static void rcu_exp_wait_wake(unsigned long s)
spin_unlock(&rnp->exp_lock);
}
smp_mb(); /* All above changes before wakeup. */
- wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(rcu_state.expedited_sequence) & 0x3]);
+ wake_up_all(&rnp->exp_wq[rcu_seq_ctr(s) & 0x3]);
}
trace_rcu_exp_grace_period(rcu_state.name, s, TPS("endwake"));
mutex_unlock(&rcu_state.exp_wake_mutex);
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
