Re: [rcu] kernel BUG at include/linux/pagemap.h:149!

[Boqun Feng]

Hi Paul

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:16:49AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 06:25:13PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
[snip]
> > 
> > Code here is:
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TINY_RCU
> > # ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT
> > 	VM_BUG_ON(!in_atomic()); <-- BUG triggered here.
> > # endif
> > ...
> > #endif
> > 
> > This indicates that CONFIG_TINY_RCU and CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT are both y.
> > Normally, IIUC, this is not possible or meaningless, because TINY_RCU is
> > for !PREEMPT kernel. However, according to commmit e8f7c70f4 ("sched:
> > Make sleeping inside spinlock detection working in !CONFIG_PREEMPT"),
> > maintaining preempt counts in !PREEMPT kernel makes sense for finding
> > preempt-related bugs.
> 
> Good analysis, thank you!
> 
> > So a possible fix would be still counting preempt_count in
> > rcu_read_lock and rcu_read_unlock if PREEMPT_COUNT is y for debug
> > purpose:
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > index 07f9b95..887bf5f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
> > @@ -297,10 +297,16 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void);
> > 
> >  static inline void __rcu_read_lock(void)
> >  {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT
> > +       preempt_disable();
> > +#endif
> 
> We can save a line as follows:
> 
> 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT))
> 		preempt_disable();
> 
> This approach also has the advantage of letting the compiler look at
> more of the code, so that compiler errors in strange combinations of
> configurations are less likely to be missed.
> 

Good idea, plus better readability IMO.


> >  }
> > 
> >  static inline void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
> >  {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT
> > +       preempt_enable();
> > +#endif
> >  }
> > 
> > I did a simple booting test with the some configuration on a guest on
> > x86, didn't see this error again.
> > 
> > (Also add Frederic Weisbecker to CCed)
> 
> Would you like to send me a replacement patch?
> 

Not sure I'm handling the Signed-off-by right.., but here it is:

(The rest on dev.2015.09.01a branch can be applied on this cleanly, and
I did a simple booting test with the same configuration on a guest on
x86, didn't see the reported error again)


--------------->8
Subject: [PATCH 01/27] rcu: Don't disable preemption for Tiny and Tree RCU
 readers

Because preempt_disable() maps to barrier() for non-debug builds,
it forces the compiler to spill and reload registers.  Because Tree
RCU and Tiny RCU now only appear in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n builds, these
barrier() instances generate needless extra code for each instance of
rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock().  This extra code slows down Tree
RCU and bloats Tiny RCU.

This commit therefore removes the preempt_disable() and preempt_enable()
from the non-preemptible implementations of __rcu_read_lock() and
__rcu_read_unlock(), respectively.

For debug purposes, preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() are still
kept if CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y, which makes the detection of sleeping
inside atomic sections still work in non-preemptible kernels.

Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 include/linux/rcupdate.h | 6 ++++--
 include/linux/rcutiny.h  | 1 +
 kernel/rcu/tree.c        | 9 +++++++++
 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/rcupdate.h b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
index d63bb77..6c3cece 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h
@@ -297,12 +297,14 @@ void synchronize_rcu(void);
 
 static inline void __rcu_read_lock(void)
 {
-	preempt_disable();
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT))
+		preempt_disable();
 }
 
 static inline void __rcu_read_unlock(void)
 {
-	preempt_enable();
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT))
+		preempt_enable();
 }
 
 static inline void synchronize_rcu(void)
diff --git a/include/linux/rcutiny.h b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
index c8a0722..4c1aaf9 100644
--- a/include/linux/rcutiny.h
+++ b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
@@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ static inline bool rcu_is_watching(void)
 
 static inline void rcu_all_qs(void)
 {
+	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking across. */
 }
 
 #endif /* __LINUX_RCUTINY_H */
diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index ce43fac..b4882f8 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -337,12 +337,14 @@ static void rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle(void)
  */
 void rcu_note_context_switch(void)
 {
+	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking down. */
 	trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("Start context switch"));
 	rcu_sched_qs();
 	rcu_preempt_note_context_switch();
 	if (unlikely(raw_cpu_read(rcu_sched_qs_mask)))
 		rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle();
 	trace_rcu_utilization(TPS("End context switch"));
+	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking up. */
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_note_context_switch);
 
@@ -353,12 +355,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_note_context_switch);
  * RCU flavors in desperate need of a quiescent state, which will normally
  * be none of them).  Either way, do a lightweight quiescent state for
  * all RCU flavors.
+ *
+ * The barrier() calls are redundant in the common case when this is
+ * called externally, but just in case this is called from within this
+ * file.
+ *
  */
 void rcu_all_qs(void)
 {
+	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking down. */
 	if (unlikely(raw_cpu_read(rcu_sched_qs_mask)))
 		rcu_momentary_dyntick_idle();
 	this_cpu_inc(rcu_qs_ctr);
+	barrier(); /* Avoid RCU read-side critical sections leaking up. */
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rcu_all_qs);
--
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/