From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nicstange@gmail.com>,
"Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
gregkh <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:36:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o9ws6m4s.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1490280886.2766.4.camel@sipsolutions.net> (Johannes Berg's message of "Thu, 23 Mar 2017 15:54:46 +0100")
Hi Johannes,
On Thu, Mar 23 2017, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Before I go hunting - has anyone seen a deadlock in synchronize_srcu()
> in debugfs_remove() before?
Not yet. How reproducible is this?
> We're observing that with our (backported, but very recent) driver
> against 4.9 (and 4.10, I think),
Do I understand it correctly that this driver has been backported from
4.11-rcX to 4.9/10 and that there isn't any issue with 4.11-rcX?
> but there are no backports of any debugfs things so the backport
> itself doesn't seem like a likely problem.
Right, there haven't been any SRCU related changes to debugfs after
4.8.
> sysrq-w shows a lot of tasks blocked on various locks (e.g. RTNL), but
> the ultimate problem is the wireless stack getting blocked on
> debugfs_remove_recursive(), in __synchronize_srcu(), in
> wait_for_completion() (while holding lots of locks, hence the other
> tasks getting stuck).
Could you share a complete backtrace? For example, is the
debugfs_remove_recursive() called from any debugfs file's fops and thus,
possibly from within a SRCU read side critical section?
Thanks,
Nicolai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-23 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-23 14:54 Johannes Berg
2017-03-23 15:29 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24 8:56 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24 9:24 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24 17:45 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-24 18:51 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-24 19:33 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-24 20:20 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-27 11:18 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-23 15:36 ` Nicolai Stange [this message]
2017-03-23 15:47 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-27 11:36 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-30 7:32 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-30 7:55 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-30 10:27 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-30 11:11 ` Johannes Berg
2017-03-31 9:03 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-03-31 9:44 ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 0/9] debugfs: per-file removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] debugfs: add support for more elaborate ->d_fsdata Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] debugfs: implement per-file removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-18 2:23 ` [lkp-robot] [debugfs] f3e7155d08: BUG:unable_to_handle_kernel kernel test robot
2017-04-23 18:37 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-04-24 6:36 ` Ye Xiaolong
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] debugfs: debugfs_real_fops(): drop __must_hold sparse annotation Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] debugfs: convert to debugfs_file_get() and -put() Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] IB/hfi1: " Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] debugfs: purge obsolete SRCU based removal protection Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] debugfs: call debugfs_real_fops() only after debugfs_file_get() Nicolai Stange
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] debugfs: defer debugfs_fsdata allocation to first usage Nicolai Stange
2017-04-18 9:36 ` Johannes Berg
2017-05-02 20:05 ` Nicolai Stange
2017-05-03 5:43 ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-16 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] debugfs: free debugfs_fsdata instances Nicolai Stange
2017-04-17 16:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18 9:39 ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 13:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18 13:40 ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 15:17 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-04-18 15:20 ` Johannes Berg
2017-04-18 17:19 ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-23 15:37 ` deadlock in synchronize_srcu() in debugfs? Paul E. McKenney
2017-03-23 15:46 ` Johannes Berg
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=87o9ws6m4s.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=nicstange@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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