tree 87c998455e9e1fa6916cfa406f1fa4c9095c6b57
parent 48131dd0f2b19dd297147c23dc634432fecee638
author Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 1481291940 +0100
committer Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 1499258426 +0200

perf/core: Fix sys_perf_event_open() vs. hotplug


[ Upstream commit 63cae12bce9861cec309798d34701cf3da20bc71 ]

There is problem with installing an event in a task that is 'stuck' on
an offline CPU.

Blocked tasks are not dis-assosciated from offlined CPUs, after all, a
blocked task doesn't run and doesn't require a CPU etc.. Only on
wakeup do we ammend the situation and place the task on a available
CPU.

If we hit such a task with perf_install_in_context() we'll loop until
either that task wakes up or the CPU comes back online, if the task
waking depends on the event being installed, we're stuck.

While looking into this issue, I also spotted another problem, if we
hit a task with perf_install_in_context() that is in the middle of
being migrated, that is we observe the old CPU before sending the IPI,
but run the IPI (on the old CPU) while the task is already running on
the new CPU, things also go sideways.

Rework things to rely on task_curr() -- outside of rq->lock -- which
is rather tricky. Imagine the following scenario where we're trying to
install the first event into our task 't':

CPU0            CPU1            CPU2

                (current == t)

t->perf_event_ctxp[] = ctx;
smp_mb();
cpu = task_cpu(t);

                switch(t, n);
                                migrate(t, 2);
                                switch(p, t);

                                ctx = t->perf_event_ctxp[]; // must not be NULL

smp_function_call(cpu, ..);

                generic_exec_single()
                  func();
                    spin_lock(ctx->lock);
                    if (task_curr(t)) // false

                    add_event_to_ctx();
                    spin_unlock(ctx->lock);

                                perf_event_context_sched_in();
                                  spin_lock(ctx->lock);
                                  // sees event

So its CPU0's store of t->perf_event_ctxp[] that must not go 'missing'.
Because if CPU2's load of that variable were to observe NULL, it would
not try to schedule the ctx and we'd have a task running without its
counter, which would be 'bad'.

As long as we observe !NULL, we'll acquire ctx->lock. If we acquire it
first and not see the event yet, then CPU0 must observe task_curr()
and retry. If the install happens first, then we must see the event on
sched-in and all is well.

I think we can translate the first part (until the 'must not be NULL')
of the scenario to a litmus test like:

  C C-peterz

  {
  }

  P0(int *x, int *y)
  {
          int r1;

          WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
          smp_mb();
          r1 = READ_ONCE(*y);
  }

  P1(int *y, int *z)
  {
          WRITE_ONCE(*y, 1);
          smp_store_release(z, 1);
  }

  P2(int *x, int *z)
  {
          int r1;
          int r2;

          r1 = smp_load_acquire(z);
	  smp_mb();
          r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
  }

  exists
  (0:r1=0 /\ 2:r1=1 /\ 2:r2=0)

Where:
  x is perf_event_ctxp[],
  y is our tasks's CPU, and
  z is our task being placed on the rq of CPU2.

The P0 smp_mb() is the one added by this patch, ordering the store to
perf_event_ctxp[] from find_get_context() and the load of task_cpu()
in task_function_call().

The smp_store_release/smp_load_acquire model the RCpc locking of the
rq->lock and the smp_mb() of P2 is the context switch switching from
whatever CPU2 was running to our task 't'.

This litmus test evaluates into:

  Test C-peterz Allowed
  States 7
  0:r1=0; 2:r1=0; 2:r2=0;
  0:r1=0; 2:r1=0; 2:r2=1;
  0:r1=0; 2:r1=1; 2:r2=1;
  0:r1=1; 2:r1=0; 2:r2=0;
  0:r1=1; 2:r1=0; 2:r2=1;
  0:r1=1; 2:r1=1; 2:r2=0;
  0:r1=1; 2:r1=1; 2:r2=1;
  No
  Witnesses
  Positive: 0 Negative: 7
  Condition exists (0:r1=0 /\ 2:r1=1 /\ 2:r2=0)
  Observation C-peterz Never 0 7
  Hash=e427f41d9146b2a5445101d3e2fcaa34

And the strong and weak model agree.

Reported-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: jeremy.linton@arm.com
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161209135900.GU3174@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@verizon.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>