3.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 058ebd0eba3aff16b144eabf4510ed9510e1416e upstream.
Jiri managed to trigger this warning:
[] ======================================================
[] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[] 3.10.0+ #228 Tainted: G W
[] -------------------------------------------------------
[] p/6613 is trying to acquire lock:
[] (rcu_node_0){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff810ca797>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0xa7/0x250
[]
[] but task is already holding lock:
[] (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810f2879>] perf_lock_task_context+0xd9/0x2c0
[]
[] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[]
[] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[]
[] -> #4 (&ctx->lock){-.-...}:
[] -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
[] -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
[] -> #1 (&rnp->nocb_gp_wq[1]){......}:
[] -> #0 (rcu_node_0){..-...}:
Paul was quick to explain that due to preemptible RCU we cannot call
rcu_read_unlock() while holding scheduler (or nested) locks when part
of the read side critical section was preemptible.
Therefore solve it by making the entire RCU read side non-preemptible.
Also pull out the retry from under the non-preempt to play nice with RT.
Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
Helped-out-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -651,8 +651,18 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struc
{
struct perf_event_context *ctx;
- rcu_read_lock();
retry:
+ /*
+ * One of the few rules of preemptible RCU is that one cannot do
+ * rcu_read_unlock() while holding a scheduler (or nested) lock when
+ * part of the read side critical section was preemptible -- see
+ * rcu_read_unlock_special().
+ *
+ * Since ctx->lock nests under rq->lock we must ensure the entire read
+ * side critical section is non-preemptible.
+ */
+ preempt_disable();
+ rcu_read_lock();
ctx = rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn]);
if (ctx) {
/*
@@ -668,6 +678,8 @@ retry:
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, *flags);
if (ctx != rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn])) {
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, *flags);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ preempt_enable();
goto retry;
}
@@ -677,6 +689,7 @@ retry:
}
}
rcu_read_unlock();
+ preempt_enable();
return ctx;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html