From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751567AbdBFKjZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:39:25 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47780 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751121AbdBFKjV (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 05:39:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:39:19 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Tetsuo Handa , peterz@infradead.org Cc: hch@lst.de, mgorman@suse.de, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@kvack.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Message-ID: <20170206103918.GD3097@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <201701290027.AFB30799.FVtFLOOOJMSHQF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170130085546.GF8443@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170202101415.GE22806@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702031957.AGH86961.MLtOQVFOSHJFFO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <20170203145548.GC19325@dhcp22.suse.cz> <201702051943.CFB35412.OOSJVtLFOFQHMF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201702051943.CFB35412.OOSJVtLFOFQHMF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun 05-02-17 19:43:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Michal Hocko wrote: > I got same warning with ext4. Maybe we need to check carefully. > > [ 511.215743] ===================================================== > [ 511.218003] WARNING: RECLAIM_FS-safe -> RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock order detected > [ 511.220031] 4.10.0-rc6-next-20170202+ #500 Not tainted > [ 511.221689] ----------------------------------------------------- > [ 511.223579] a.out/49302 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] is trying to acquire: > [ 511.225533] (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}, at: [] get_online_cpus+0x37/0x80 > [ 511.227795] > [ 511.227795] and this task is already holding: > [ 511.230082] (jbd2_handle){++++-.}, at: [] start_this_handle+0x1a7/0x590 > [ 511.232592] which would create a new lock dependency: > [ 511.234192] (jbd2_handle){++++-.} -> (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++} > [ 511.235966] > [ 511.235966] but this new dependency connects a RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe lock: > [ 511.238563] (jbd2_handle){++++-.} > [ 511.238564] > [ 511.238564] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe at: > [ 511.242078] > [ 511.242084] [] __lock_acquire+0x34b/0x1640 > [ 511.244495] [] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x250 > [ 511.246697] [] jbd2_log_wait_commit+0x55/0x1d0 [...] > [ 511.276216] to a RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe lock: > [ 511.278128] (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++} > [ 511.278130] > [ 511.278130] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe at: > [ 511.281809] ... > [ 511.281811] > [ 511.282598] [] mark_held_locks+0x71/0x90 > [ 511.284854] [] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x6f/0xd0 > [ 511.287218] [] kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace+0x48/0x3b0 > [ 511.289755] [] __smpboot_create_thread.part.2+0x35/0xf0 > [ 511.292329] [] smpboot_create_threads+0x66/0x90 [...] > [ 511.317867] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 511.317867] > [ 511.320920] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: > [ 511.320920] > [ 511.323218] CPU0 CPU1 > [ 511.324622] ---- ---- > [ 511.325973] lock(cpu_hotplug.dep_map); > [ 511.327246] local_irq_disable(); > [ 511.328870] lock(jbd2_handle); > [ 511.330483] lock(cpu_hotplug.dep_map); > [ 511.332259] > [ 511.333187] lock(jbd2_handle); Peter, is there any way how to tell the lockdep that this is in fact reclaim safe? The direct reclaim only does the trylock and backs off so we cannot deadlock here. Or am I misinterpreting the trace? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs