Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1639269
| From | Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout |
| Date | 2017-05-11 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tFSJH-4zj-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tBbWF-6wF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tFEnn-43w-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <tFG5Q-58x-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tFRNE-40O-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:30:39AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 10 May 2017, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > [ 0.182133] [<ffff200008155218>] lockdep_assert_hotplug_held+0x78/0x98 > > > [ 0.182161] [<ffff20000840a36c>] __static_key_slow_inc+0x174/0x2e0 > > > [ 0.182188] [<ffff20000840a654>] static_key_enable_cpuslocked+0x64/0xb0 > > > [ 0.182215] [<ffff2000080a1120>] update_cpu_capabilities+0x178/0x2d8 > > > [ 0.182243] [<ffff20000809e72c>] update_cpu_errata_workarounds_cpuslocked+0x1c/0x28 > > > [ 0.182270] [<ffff2000080a1420>] check_local_cpu_capabilities+0x1a0/0x248 > > > [ 0.182295] [<ffff2000080a2d18>] secondary_start_kernel+0x1e8/0x478 > > > [ 0.182317] [<000000008219a1b4>] 0x8219a1b4 > > > [ 0.182337] CPU features: enabling workaround for ARM erratum 834220 > > > [ 0.182362] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > > The problem is that the secondary CPU doesn't hold the rwsem when it > > > calls __static_key_slow_inc() in its boot path. It cannot take the > > > rwsem, since the primaary CPU holds this for the duration of onlining > > > the secondary CPU. > > Looking deeper into that: > > secondary_start_kernel() > check_local_cpu_capabilities() > update_cpu_errata_workarounds() > update_cpu_capabilities() > static_key_enable() > __static_key_slow_inc() > jump_label_lock() > mutex_lock(&jump_label_mutex); > > How is that supposed to work? > > That call path is the low level CPU bringup, running in the context of the > idle task of that CPU with interrupts and preemption disabled. Taking a > mutex in that context, even if in that case the mutex is uncontended, is a > NONO. Urgh; good point. Thanks for taking a look. I think I can solve both issues by deferring poking the keys, so I'll give that a go. As an aside, do we have anything that should detect the broken mutex usage? I've been testing kernels with LOCKDEP, PROVE_LOCKING, DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, and friends, and nothing has complained so far. Thanks, Mark.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-04-28 13:10 +0200
[PATCHv3 2/2] arm64: cpufeature: use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-04-28 13:10 +0200
[tip:smp/hotplug] arm64/cpufeature: Use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() tip-bot for Mark Rutland <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2017-04-30 11:50 +0200
[PATCHv3 1/2] jump_label: Provide static_key_[enable|/slow_inc]_cpuslocked() Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-04-28 13:10 +0200
[tip:smp/hotplug] jump_label: Provide static_key_[enable|/slow_inc]_cpuslocked() tip-bot for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2017-04-30 11:50 +0200
Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-05-10 20:20 +0200
Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-05-10 22:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-05-11 10:40 +0200
Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-05-11 11:40 +0200
Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-05-11 12:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHv3 0/2] arm64: fix hotplug rwsem boot fallout Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-05-11 15:00 +0200
csiph-web