Re: Testing of shared RCU branching

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:11:11AM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:08:53AM -0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 07:58:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Hello, Boqun,
> > > 
> > > I have run overnight tests on your earlier branches here:
> > > 
> > > ccb986e8b69f ("MAINTAINERS: Update Joel's email address")
> > > 
> 
> Oh and I should have let you know, I updated next and dev branch, the
> latest ones are:
> 
> 	next.2025.02.24a and dev.2025.02.24a in rcu repo.

Very well, I will try them out later today.

> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > > These passed other than a KCSAN complaint involving
> > > rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() and rcu_read_unlock_special().
> > > This looks like the plain C-language writes to ->defer_qs_iw_pending.
> > > 
> > > My guess is that this is low probability, despite having happened twice,
> > > and that it happens when rcu_read_unlock_special() is interrupted,
> > > resulting in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler() being invoked as an
> > > IRQ-work handler.  Keeping in mind that RCU runs KCSAN so as to locate
> > > data races between task and handler on the same CPU.
> > > 
> > > Thoughts?
> > > 
> > 
> > Do you have a KCSAN of this? Also this is not a regression, right?
> > Meaning you probably have seen this before? Anyway, it should be an easy
> > fix (just using READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE()). I can send the fix out
> > and put it in.

Here you go!  And you are right, if it is a regression, it is from a
long time ago, though something more recent might have made it more
probable.

In any case, not at all urgent.

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[  624.037869] ==================================================================
[  624.037883] BUG: KCSAN: data-race in rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler / rcu_read_unlock_special
[  624.037906]
[  624.037909] read to 0xffffa034df2eff90 of 1 bytes by task 45 on cpu 3:
[  624.037916]  rcu_read_unlock_special+0x177/0x260
[  624.037925]  __rcu_read_unlock+0x92/0xa0
[  624.037935]  rt_spin_unlock+0x9b/0xc0
[  624.037946]  __local_bh_enable+0x10e/0x170
[  624.037957]  __local_bh_enable_ip+0xe9/0x140
[  624.037967]  rcu_cpu_kthread+0x95f/0x1190
[  624.037976]  smpboot_thread_fn+0x230/0x320
[  624.037985]  kthread+0x3b8/0x400
[  624.037995]  ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
[  624.038025]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[  624.038036]
[  624.038039] write to 0xffffa034df2eff90 of 1 bytes by task 43 on cpu 3:
[  624.038046]  rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_handler+0x1e/0x30
[  624.038057]  irq_work_single+0xaf/0x160
[  624.038066]  run_irq_workd+0x92/0xd0
[  624.038075]  smpboot_thread_fn+0x230/0x320
[  624.038085]  kthread+0x3b8/0x400
[  624.038095]  ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
[  624.038105]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[  624.038116]
[  624.038118] no locks held by irq_work/3/43.
[  624.038123] irq event stamp: 202724
[  624.038126] hardirqs last  enabled at (202724): [<ffffffffa8950831>] finish_task_switch+0x131/0x320
[  624.038138] hardirqs last disabled at (202723): [<ffffffffa9f8ce02>] __schedule+0xe2/0xbb0
[  624.038146] softirqs last  enabled at (0): [<ffffffffa88dbfd1>] copy_process+0x4e1/0x1cc0
[  624.038159] softirqs last disabled at (0): [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
[  624.038167]
[  624.038169] Reported by Kernel Concurrency Sanitizer on:
[  624.038173] CPU: 3 UID: 0 PID: 43 Comm: irq_work/3 Not tainted 6.14.0-rc1-00080-gd6558730a4de #6410
[  624.038185] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[  624.038191] ==================================================================





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux