[ 3.8.y.z extended stable ] Patch "perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU" has been added to staging queue

[Kamal Mostafa]

This is a note to let you know that I have just added a patch titled

    perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU

to the linux-3.8.y-queue branch of the 3.8.y.z extended stable tree 
which can be found at:

 http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=ubuntu/linux.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/linux-3.8.y-queue

This patch is scheduled to be released in version 3.8.13.5.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to this tree, please 
reply to this email.

For more information about the 3.8.y.z tree, see
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/ExtendedStable

Thanks.
-Kamal

------

>From 4d80b0b14d149e400a1bfd288a35da4ed3627171 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:08:33 +0200
Subject: perf: Fix perf_lock_task_context() vs RCU

commit 058ebd0eba3aff16b144eabf4510ed9510e1416e upstream.

Jiri managed to trigger this warning:

 [] ======================================================
 [] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
 [] 3.10.0+ #228 Tainted: G        W
 [] -------------------------------------------------------
 [] p/6613 is trying to acquire lock:
 []  (rcu_node_0){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff810ca797>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0xa7/0x250
 []
 [] but task is already holding lock:
 []  (&ctx->lock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff810f2879>] perf_lock_task_context+0xd9/0x2c0
 []
 [] which lock already depends on the new lock.
 []
 [] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
 []
 [] -> #4 (&ctx->lock){-.-...}:
 [] -> #3 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
 [] -> #2 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
 [] -> #1 (&rnp->nocb_gp_wq[1]){......}:
 [] -> #0 (rcu_node_0){..-...}:

Paul was quick to explain that due to preemptible RCU we cannot call
rcu_read_unlock() while holding scheduler (or nested) locks when part
of the read side critical section was preemptible.

Therefore solve it by making the entire RCU read side non-preemptible.

Also pull out the retry from under the non-preempt to play nice with RT.

Reported-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa at redhat.com>
Helped-out-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal at canonical.com>
---
 kernel/events/core.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index d28d8d0..9c53789 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -729,8 +729,18 @@ perf_lock_task_context(struct task_struct *task, int ctxn, unsigned long *flags)
 {
 	struct perf_event_context *ctx;

-	rcu_read_lock();
 retry:
+	/*
+	 * One of the few rules of preemptible RCU is that one cannot do
+	 * rcu_read_unlock() while holding a scheduler (or nested) lock when
+	 * part of the read side critical section was preemptible -- see
+	 * rcu_read_unlock_special().
+	 *
+	 * Since ctx->lock nests under rq->lock we must ensure the entire read
+	 * side critical section is non-preemptible.
+	 */
+	preempt_disable();
+	rcu_read_lock();
 	ctx = rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn]);
 	if (ctx) {
 		/*
@@ -746,6 +756,8 @@ retry:
 		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&ctx->lock, *flags);
 		if (ctx != rcu_dereference(task->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn])) {
 			raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctx->lock, *flags);
+			rcu_read_unlock();
+			preempt_enable();
 			goto retry;
 		}

@@ -755,6 +767,7 @@ retry:
 		}
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
+	preempt_enable();
 	return ctx;
 }

--
1.8.1.2