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

[Luis Henriques]

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-3.5.y-queue branch of the 3.5.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-3.5.y-queue

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

For more information about the 3.5.y.z tree, see
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev/ExtendedStable

Thanks.
-Luis

------

>From 2ac72f038ce1d561c5ff193ee89b0a6b1ed0dcd8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:08:33 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] 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: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques 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 cccd51c..00aa7e3 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -723,8 +723,18 @@ 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) {
 		/*
@@ -740,6 +750,8 @@ 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;
 		}

@@ -749,6 +761,7 @@ retry:
 		}
 	}
 	rcu_read_unlock();
+	preempt_enable();
 	return ctx;
 }

--
1.8.1.2