From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754772AbdLFFGK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:06:10 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:55172 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750732AbdLFFGJ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 6 Dec 2017 00:06:09 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.121
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 14:05:47 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        syzbot 
        <bot+045a1f65bdea780940bf0f795a292f4cd0b773d1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, jlayton@redhat.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, npiggin@gmail.com,
        rgoldwyn@suse.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: possible deadlock in generic_file_write_iter (2)
Message-ID: <20171206050547.GA5260@X58A-UD3R>
References: <94eb2c0d010a4e7897055f70535b@google.com>
 <20171204083339.GF8365@quack2.suse.cz>
 <80ba65b6-d0c2-2d3a-779b-a134af8a9054@lge.com>
 <CACT4Y+arqmp6RW4mt3EyaPqxqxPyY31kjDLftnof5DkwfyoyRQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+arqmp6RW4mt3EyaPqxqxPyY31kjDLftnof5DkwfyoyRQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 10:19:07AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
> > On 12/4/2017 5:33 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> adding Peter and Byungchul to CC since the lockdep report just looks
> >> strange and cross-release seems to be involved. Guys, how did #5 get into
> >> the lock chain and what does put_ucounts() have to do with sb_writers
> >> there? Thanks!
> >
> >
> > Hello Jan,
> >
> > In order to get full stack of #5, we have to pass a boot param,
> > "crossrelease_fullstack", to the kernel. Now that it only informs
> > put_ucounts() in the call trace, it's hard to find out what exactly
> > happened at that time, but I can tell #5 shows:
> >
> > When acquire(sb_writers) in put_ucounts(), it was on the way to
> > complete((completion)&req.done) of wait_for_completion() in
> > devtmpfs_create_node().
> >
> > If acquire(sb_writers) in put_ucounts() is stuck, then
> > wait_for_completion() in devtmpfs_create_node() would be also
> > stuck, since complete() being in the context of acquire(sb_writers)
> > cannot be called.
> >
> > This is why cross-release added the lock chain.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> What is cross-release? Is it something new? Should we always enable
> crossrelease_fullstack during testing?

Hello Dmitry,

Yes, it's new one making lockdep track wait_for_completion() as well.

And we should enable crossrelease_fullstack if you don't care system
slowdown but testing.

--
Thanks,
Byungchul