Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/5] timekeeping: Avoid possible deadlock fromclock_was_set_delayed

[Ingo Molnar]

* John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> As part of normal operaions, the hrtimer subsystem frequently calls
> into the timekeeping code, creating a locking order of
>   hrtimer locks -> timekeeping locks
> 
> clock_was_set_delayed() was suppoed to allow us to avoid deadlocks
> between the timekeeping the hrtimer subsystem, so that we could
> notify the hrtimer subsytem the time had changed while holding
> the timekeeping locks. This was done by scheduling delayed work
> that would run later once we were out of the timekeeing code.
> 
> But unfortunately the lock chains are complex enoguh that in
> scheduling delayed work, we end up eventually trying to grab
> an hrtimer lock.
> 
> Sasha Levin noticed this in testing when the new seqlock lockdep
> enablement triggered the following (somewhat abrieviated) message:
> 
> [  251.100221] ======================================================
> [  251.100221] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [  251.100221] 3.13.0-rc2-next-20131206-sasha-00005-g8be2375-dirty #4053 Not tainted
> [  251.101967] -------------------------------------------------------
> [  251.101967] kworker/10:1/4506 is trying to acquire lock:
> [  251.101967]  (timekeeper_seq){----..}, at: [<ffffffff81160e96>] retrigger_next_event+0x56/0x70
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967] but task is already holding lock:
> [  251.101967]  (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81160e7c>] retrigger_next_event+0x3c/0x70
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [  251.101967]
> -> #5 (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}:
> [snipped]
> -> #4 (&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock){-.-...}:
> [snipped]
> -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
> [snipped]
> -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
> [snipped]
> -> #1 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-...}:
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81194803>] validate_chain+0x6c3/0x7b0
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81194d9d>] __lock_acquire+0x4ad/0x580
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81194ff2>] lock_acquire+0x182/0x1d0
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff84398500>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81153e69>] __queue_work+0x1a9/0x3f0
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81154168>] queue_work_on+0x98/0x120
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff81161351>] clock_was_set_delayed+0x21/0x30
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff811c4bd1>] do_adjtimex+0x111/0x160
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff811e2711>] compat_sys_adjtimex+0x41/0x70
> [  251.101967]        [<ffffffff843a4b49>] ia32_sysret+0x0/0x5
> [  251.101967]
> -> #0 (timekeeper_seq){----..}:
> [snipped]
> [  251.101967] other info that might help us debug this:
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967] Chain exists of:
>   timekeeper_seq --> &rt_b->rt_runtime_lock --> hrtimer_bases.lock#11
> 
> [  251.101967]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967]        CPU0                    CPU1
> [  251.101967]        ----                    ----
> [  251.101967]   lock(hrtimer_bases.lock#11);
> [  251.101967]                                lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> [  251.101967]                                lock(hrtimer_bases.lock#11);
> [  251.101967]   lock(timekeeper_seq);
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967]  *** DEADLOCK ***
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967] 3 locks held by kworker/10:1/4506:
> [  251.101967]  #0:  (events){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81154960>] process_one_work+0x200/0x530
> [  251.101967]  #1:  (hrtimer_work){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81154960>] process_one_work+0x200/0x530
> [  251.101967]  #2:  (hrtimer_bases.lock#11){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81160e7c>] retrigger_next_event+0x3c/0x70
> [  251.101967]
> [  251.101967] stack backtrace:
> [  251.101967] CPU: 10 PID: 4506 Comm: kworker/10:1 Not tainted 3.13.0-rc2-next-20131206-sasha-00005-g8be2375-dirty #4053
> [  251.101967] Workqueue: events clock_was_set_work
> 
> So the best solution is to avoid calling clock_was_set_delayed() while
> holding the timekeeping lock, and instead using a flag variable to
> decide if we should call clock_was_set() once we've released the locks.
> 
> This works for the case here, where the do_adjtimex() was the deadlock
> trigger point. Unfortuantely, in update_wall_time() we still hold
> the jiffies lock, which would deadlock with the ipi triggered by
> clock_was_set(), preventing us from calling it even after we drop the
> timekeeping lock. So instead call clock_was_set_delayed() at that point.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> #3.10+
> Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> index 998ec751..c1d36b6 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -1278,7 +1278,6 @@ static inline unsigned int accumulate_nsecs_to_secs(struct timekeeper *tk)
>  
>  			__timekeeping_set_tai_offset(tk, tk->tai_offset - leap);
>  
> -			clock_was_set_delayed();
>  			action = TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET;
>  		}
>  	}
> @@ -1440,6 +1439,19 @@ static void update_wall_time(void)
>  	write_seqcount_end(&timekeeper_seq);
>  out:
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timekeeper_lock, flags);
> +	if (action & TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET) {
> +		/*
> +		 * XXX -  I'd rather we just call clock_was_set(), but
> +		 * since we're currently holding the jiffies lock, calling
> +		 * clock_was_set would trigger an ipi which would then grab
> +		 * the jiffies lock and we'd deadlock. :(
> +		 * The right solution should probably be droping
> +		 * the jiffies lock before calling update_wall_time
> +		 * but that requires some rework of the tick sched
> +		 * code.

s/droping/
  dropping

> +		 */
> +		clock_was_set_delayed();

Hm, this feels like a hack. Is the 'rework of the tick sched code' 
going to happen too?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/