Skip to content

Commit 852997d

Browse files
Peter ZijlstraAndi Kleen
authored andcommitted
sched: fix RCU lockdep splat from task_group()
commit 6506cf6 upstream. This addresses the following RCU lockdep splat: [0.051203] CPU0: AMD QEMU Virtual CPU version 0.12.4 stepping 03 [0.052999] lockdep: fixing up alternatives. [0.054105] [0.054106] =================================================== [0.054999] [ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ] [0.054999] --------------------------------------------------- [0.054999] kernel/sched.c:616 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! [0.054999] [0.054999] other info that might help us debug this: [0.054999] [0.054999] [0.054999] rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1 [0.054999] 3 locks held by swapper/1: [0.054999] #0: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff814be933>] cpu_up+0x42/0x6a [0.054999] coolya#1: (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810400d8>] cpu_hotplug_begin+0x2a/0x51 [0.054999] coolya#2: (&rq->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff814be2f7>] init_idle+0x2f/0x113 [0.054999] [0.054999] stack backtrace: [0.054999] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.35 coolya#1 [0.054999] Call Trace: [0.054999] [<ffffffff81068054>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x9b/0xa3 [0.054999] [<ffffffff810325c3>] task_group+0x7b/0x8a [0.054999] [<ffffffff810325e5>] set_task_rq+0x13/0x40 [0.054999] [<ffffffff814be39a>] init_idle+0xd2/0x113 [0.054999] [<ffffffff814be78a>] fork_idle+0xb8/0xc7 [0.054999] [<ffffffff81068717>] ? mark_held_locks+0x4d/0x6b [0.054999] [<ffffffff814bcebd>] do_fork_idle+0x17/0x2b [0.054999] [<ffffffff814bc89b>] native_cpu_up+0x1c1/0x724 [0.054999] [<ffffffff814bcea6>] ? do_fork_idle+0x0/0x2b [0.054999] [<ffffffff814be876>] _cpu_up+0xac/0x127 [0.054999] [<ffffffff814be946>] cpu_up+0x55/0x6a [0.054999] [<ffffffff81ab562a>] kernel_init+0xe1/0x1ff [0.054999] [<ffffffff81003854>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [0.054999] [<ffffffff814c353c>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 [0.054999] [<ffffffff81ab5549>] ? kernel_init+0x0/0x1ff [0.054999] [<ffffffff81003850>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10 [0.056074] Booting Node 0, Processors #1lockdep: fixing up alternatives. [0.130045] #2lockdep: fixing up alternatives. [0.203089] coolya#3 Ok. [0.275286] Brought up 4 CPUs [0.276005] Total of 4 processors activated (16017.17 BogoMIPS). The cgroup_subsys_state structures referenced by idle tasks are never freed, because the idle tasks should be part of the root cgroup, which is not removable. The problem is that while we do in-fact hold rq->lock, the newly spawned idle thread's cpu is not yet set to the correct cpu so the lockdep check in task_group(): lockdep_is_held(&task_rq(p)->lock) will fail. But this is a chicken and egg problem. Setting the CPU's runqueue requires that the CPU's runqueue already be set. ;-) So insert an RCU read-side critical section to avoid the complaint. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
1 parent abf171a commit 852997d

1 file changed

Lines changed: 12 additions & 0 deletions

File tree

kernel/sched.c

Lines changed: 12 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -5157,7 +5157,19 @@ void __cpuinit init_idle(struct task_struct *idle, int cpu)
51575157
idle->se.exec_start = sched_clock();
51585158

51595159
cpumask_copy(&idle->cpus_allowed, cpumask_of(cpu));
5160+
/*
5161+
* We're having a chicken and egg problem, even though we are
5162+
* holding rq->lock, the cpu isn't yet set to this cpu so the
5163+
* lockdep check in task_group() will fail.
5164+
*
5165+
* Similar case to sched_fork(). / Alternatively we could
5166+
* use task_rq_lock() here and obtain the other rq->lock.
5167+
*
5168+
* Silence PROVE_RCU
5169+
*/
5170+
rcu_read_lock();
51605171
__set_task_cpu(idle, cpu);
5172+
rcu_read_unlock();
51615173

51625174
rq->curr = rq->idle = idle;
51635175
#if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(__ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW)

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)