From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: pengyu <pengyu@kylinos.cn>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, longman@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
t.haas@tu-bs.de, parri.andrea@gmail.com, j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk,
luc.maranget@inria.fr, paulmck@kernel.org,
jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com, r.maseli@tu-bs.de,
lkmm@lists.linux.dev, stern@rowland.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/qspinlock: use xchg with _mb in slowpath for arm64
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 12:37:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMqdaCkflusKi2hA@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31861b75-02ee-495e-b839-15d7510bf7c6@kylinos.cn>
On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 06:51:18PM +0800, pengyu wrote:
> Yes, this issue occurred on a kunpeng920 96-core machine and only
> affected a small number of systems that had been running for over a
> year.
>
> Vmcore Analysis:
> • Panic triggered by CPU 83 detecting a hard lockup at
> queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x1d8/0x320.
>
> • Corresponding code:
> arch_mcs_spin_lock_contended(&node->locked);
>
> • The qspinlock involved was the rq lock, which showed a cleared state:
> crash> rq.lock,cpu ffffad96ff2907c0
> lock = {
> raw_lock = {
> {
> val = {
> counter = 0
> },
> {
> locked = 0 '\000',
> pending = 0 '\000'
> },
> {
> locked_pending = 0,
> tail = 0
> }
> }
> }
> },
> cpu = 50,
>
> • CPU 83’s MCS node remained in a locked=0 state, with no previous
> node found in the qnodes list.
> crash> p qnodes:83
> per_cpu(qnodes, 83) = $292 =
> {{
> mcs = {
> next = 0x0,
> locked = 0,
> count = 1
> }
> },
> crash> p qnodes | grep 83
> [83]: ffffadd6bf7914c0
> crash> p qnodes:all | grep ffffadd6bf7914c0
> crash>
>
> • Since rq->lock was cleared, no CPU could notify CPU 83.
>
> This issue has occurred multiple times, but the root cause remains
> unclear. We suspect that CPU 83 may have failed to enqueue itself,
> potentially due to a failure in the xchg_tail atomic operation.
Hmm. For the lock word to be clear with a CPU spinning on its MCS node
then something has gone quite badly wrong. I think that would mean that:
1. The spinning CPU has updated tail to point to its node (xchg_tail())
2. The lock-owning CPU then erroneously cleared the tail field
(atomic_try_cmpxchg_relaxed())
But for the cmpxchg() to succeed in (2) then the xchg() in (1) must be
ordered after it and the lock word wouldn't end up as zero. This is
because RmW atomics must be totally ordered for a given memory location
and that applies regardless of their memory ordering properties.
Of course, there could be _a_ bug here but, given the information you've
been able to provide, it's not obviously as "simple" as a missing memory
barrier. Have you confirmed that adding memory barriers makes the problem
go away?
If you're able to check the thread_info (via sp_el0) of CPU83 in your
example, it might be interesting to see whether or not the 'cpu' field
has been corrupted. For example, if it ends up being read as -1 then we
may compute a tail of 0 when enqueuing our MCS node into the lock word.
> It has been noted that the _relaxed version is used in xchx_tail, and we
> are uncertain whether this could lead to visibility issues—for example,
> if CPU 83 modifies lock->tail, but other CPUs fail to observe the
> change.
>
> We are also checking if this is related：
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/cb83e3e4-9e22-4457-bf61-5614cc4396ad@tu-bs.de
Hopefully I (or somebody from Arm) can provide an update soon on this
topic but I wouldn't necessarily expect it to help you with this new
case.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-17 11:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20250916033903.3374794-1-pengyu@kylinos.cn>
2025-09-16 14:10 ` [PATCH] locking/qspinlock: use xchg with _mb in slowpath for arm64 Peter Zijlstra
2025-09-16 16:00 ` Will Deacon
2025-09-17 10:51 ` pengyu
2025-09-17 11:37 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2025-09-19 10:22 ` pengyu
2025-09-16 16:58 ` Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aMqdaCkflusKi2hA@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=j.alglave@ucl.ac.uk \
--cc=jonas.oberhauser@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkmm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=luc.maranget@inria.fr \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=parri.andrea@gmail.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=pengyu@kylinos.cn \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=r.maseli@tu-bs.de \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
--cc=t.haas@tu-bs.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).