From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] [RFC] cpuset: Fix potential deadlock w/ set_mems_allowed
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:52:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1381186321-4906-4-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1381186321-4906-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org>
After adding lockdep support to seqlock/seqcount structures,
I started seeing the following warning:
[ 1.070907] ======================================================
[ 1.072015] [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
[ 1.073181] 3.11.0+ #67 Not tainted
[ 1.073801] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 1.074882] kworker/u4:2/708 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
[ 1.076088] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81187d7f>] new_slab+0x5f/0x280
[ 1.077572]
[ 1.077572] and this task is already holding:
[ 1.078593] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff81339f03>] blk_execute_rq_nowait+0x53/0xf0
[ 1.080042] which would create a new lock dependency:
[ 1.080042] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock:
[ 1.080042] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}
[ 1.080042] ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-safe at:
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810ec179>] __lock_acquire+0x5b9/0x1db0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810edfe5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x130
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff818968a1>] _raw_spin_lock+0x41/0x80
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81560c9e>] scsi_device_unbusy+0x7e/0xd0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff8155a612>] scsi_finish_command+0x32/0xf0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81560e91>] scsi_softirq_done+0xa1/0x130
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff8133b0f3>] blk_done_softirq+0x73/0x90
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81095dc0>] __do_softirq+0x110/0x2f0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81095fcd>] run_ksoftirqd+0x2d/0x60
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810bc506>] smpboot_thread_fn+0x156/0x1e0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810b3916>] kthread+0xd6/0xe0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff818980ac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] to a SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
[ 1.080042] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}
[ 1.080042] ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe at:
[ 1.080042] ... [<ffffffff810ec1d3>] __lock_acquire+0x613/0x1db0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810edfe5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x130
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810b3df2>] kthreadd+0x82/0x180
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff818980ac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1.080042] ---- ----
[ 1.080042] lock(&p->mems_allowed_seq);
[ 1.080042] local_irq_disable();
[ 1.080042] lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock);
[ 1.080042] lock(&p->mems_allowed_seq);
[ 1.080042] <Interrupt>
[ 1.080042] lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock);
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] *** DEADLOCK ***
The issue stems from the kthreadd() function calling set_mems_allowed
with irqs enabled. While its possibly unlikely for the actual deadlock
to trigger, a fix is fairly simple: disable irqs before taking the
mems_allowed_seq lock.
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
---
include/linux/cpuset.h | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
index cc1b01c..3fe661f 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
@@ -110,10 +110,14 @@ static inline bool put_mems_allowed(unsigned int seq)
static inline void set_mems_allowed(nodemask_t nodemask)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
task_lock(current);
+ local_irq_save(flags);
write_seqcount_begin(¤t->mems_allowed_seq);
current->mems_allowed = nodemask;
write_seqcount_end(¤t->mems_allowed_seq);
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
task_unlock(current);
}
--
1.8.1.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-07 22:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-07 22:51 [PATCH 0/4] Lockdep enablement for seqcount/seqlocks (v2) John Stultz
2013-10-07 22:51 ` [PATCH 1/4] [RFC] net: Explicitly initialize u64_stats_sync structures for lockdep John Stultz
2013-10-23 18:23 ` John Stultz
2013-10-23 19:37 ` Julian Anastasov
2013-11-06 13:20 ` [tip:core/locking] " tip-bot for John Stultz
2013-10-07 22:51 ` [PATCH 2/4] [RFC] seqcount: Add lockdep functionality to seqcount/seqlock structures John Stultz
2013-11-06 13:20 ` [tip:core/locking] " tip-bot for John Stultz
2013-10-07 22:52 ` John Stultz [this message]
2013-11-06 13:20 ` [tip:core/locking] cpuset: Fix potential deadlock w/ set_mems_allowed tip-bot for John Stultz
2013-10-07 22:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] [RFC] ipv6: Fix for possible ipv6 seqlock deadlock John Stultz
2013-10-07 23:54 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-11-06 13:20 ` [tip:core/locking] ipv6: Fix " tip-bot for John Stultz
2013-10-29 14:09 ` [PATCH 0/4] Lockdep enablement for seqcount/seqlocks (v2) Peter Zijlstra
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-09-26 18:34 [PATCH 0/4][RFC] Lockdep enablement for seqcount/seqlocks John Stultz
2013-09-26 18:34 ` [PATCH 3/4] [RFC] cpuset: Fix potential deadlock w/ set_mems_allowed John Stultz
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=1381186321-4906-4-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org \
--to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan@huawei.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.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
Powered by JetHome