4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> commit b80a2bfce85e1051056d98d04ecb2d0b55cbbc1c upstream. The code flow in cpu_stop_queue_two_works() is a little arcane; fix this by lifting the preempt_disable() to the top to create more natural nesting wrt the spinlocks and make the wake_up_q() and preempt_enable() unconditional at the end. Furthermore, enable preemption in the -EDEADLK case, such that we spin-wait with preemption enabled. Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: isaacm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: psodagud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: pkondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180730112140.GH2494@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/stop_machine.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/stop_machine.c +++ b/kernel/stop_machine.c @@ -236,13 +236,24 @@ static int cpu_stop_queue_two_works(int struct cpu_stopper *stopper2 = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_stopper, cpu2); DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wakeq); int err; + retry: + /* + * The waking up of stopper threads has to happen in the same + * scheduling context as the queueing. Otherwise, there is a + * possibility of one of the above stoppers being woken up by another + * CPU, and preempting us. This will cause us to not wake up the other + * stopper forever. + */ + preempt_disable(); raw_spin_lock_irq(&stopper1->lock); raw_spin_lock_nested(&stopper2->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING); - err = -ENOENT; - if (!stopper1->enabled || !stopper2->enabled) + if (!stopper1->enabled || !stopper2->enabled) { + err = -ENOENT; goto unlock; + } + /* * Ensure that if we race with __stop_cpus() the stoppers won't get * queued up in reverse order leading to system deadlock. @@ -253,36 +264,30 @@ retry: * It can be falsely true but it is safe to spin until it is cleared, * queue_stop_cpus_work() does everything under preempt_disable(). */ - err = -EDEADLK; - if (unlikely(stop_cpus_in_progress)) - goto unlock; + if (unlikely(stop_cpus_in_progress)) { + err = -EDEADLK; + goto unlock; + } err = 0; __cpu_stop_queue_work(stopper1, work1, &wakeq); __cpu_stop_queue_work(stopper2, work2, &wakeq); - /* - * The waking up of stopper threads has to happen - * in the same scheduling context as the queueing. - * Otherwise, there is a possibility of one of the - * above stoppers being woken up by another CPU, - * and preempting us. This will cause us to n ot - * wake up the other stopper forever. - */ - preempt_disable(); + unlock: raw_spin_unlock(&stopper2->lock); raw_spin_unlock_irq(&stopper1->lock); if (unlikely(err == -EDEADLK)) { + preempt_enable(); + while (stop_cpus_in_progress) cpu_relax(); + goto retry; } - if (!err) { - wake_up_q(&wakeq); - preempt_enable(); - } + wake_up_q(&wakeq); + preempt_enable(); return err; }
