Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] x86, traps: Track entry into and exit from IST context

[Sasha Levin]

On 01/30/2015 02:57 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 01/28/2015 04:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33:06AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] Call Trace:
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4259)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] atomic_notifier_call_chain (include/linux/rcupdate.h:892 kernel/notifier.c:182 kernel/notifier.c:193)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:192)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] notify_die (kernel/notifier.c:538)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? atomic_notifier_call_chain (kernel/notifier.c:538)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? debug_smp_processor_id (lib/smp_processor_id.c:57)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] do_debug (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:652)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2609)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? do_int3 (arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:610)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2554 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2601)
>>>>>>>>>> [  543.999079] debug (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:1310)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know how to read this stack trace.  Are we in do_int3,
>>>>>>>>> do_debug, or both?  I didn't change do_debug at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It looks like we're in do_debug. do_int3 is only on the stack but not
>>>>>>>> part of the current frame if I can trust the '?' ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's possible that an int3 happened and I did something wrong on
>>>>>>> return that caused a subsequent do_debug to screw up, but I don't see
>>>>>>> how my patch would have caused that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were there any earlier log messages?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, nothing odd before or after.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trinity just survived for a decent amount of time for me with my
>>>>> patches, other than a bunch of apparently expected OOM kills.  I have
>>>>> no idea how to tell trinity how much memory to use.
>>>>
>>>> A longer trinity run on a larger VM survived (still with some OOM
>>>> kills, but no taint) with these patches.  I suspect that it's a
>>>> regression somewhere else in the RCU changes.  I have
>>>> CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, so I should have seen the failure if it was there,
>>>> I think.
>>>
>>> If by "RCU changes" you mean my changes to the RCU infrastructure, I am
>>> going to need more of a hint than I see in this thread thus far.  ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I can't help much, since I can't reproduce the problem.  Presumably if
>> it's a bug in -tip, someone else will trigger it, too.
> 
> I'm not sure what to tell you here, I'm not using any weird options for trinity
> to reproduce it.
> 
> It doesn't happen to frequently, but I still see it happening.
> 
> Would you like me to try a debug patch or something similar?

After talking with Paul we know what's going on here:

do_debug() calls ist_enter() to indicate we're running on the interrupt
stack. The first think ist_enter() does is:

        preempt_count_add(HARDIRQ_OFFSET);

After this, as far as the kernel is concerned, we're in interrupt mode
so in_interrupt() will return true.

Next, we'll call exception_enter() which won't do anything since:

	void context_tracking_user_exit(void)
	{
	        unsigned long flags;
	
	        if (!context_tracking_is_enabled())
	                return;
	
	        if (in_interrupt())  <=== This returns true, so nothing else gets done
	                return;

At this stage we never tell RCU that we exited user mode, but then we
try to use it calling the notifiers, which explains the warnings I'm seeing.


Thanks,
Sasha
--
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/