From: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
To: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] bcache: acquire bch_register_lock later in cached_dev_free()
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 00:19:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190612161958.2082-4-colyli@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190612161958.2082-1-colyli@suse.de>
When enable lockdep engine, a lockdep warning can be observed when
reboot or shutdown system,
[ 3142.764557][ T1] bcache: bcache_reboot() Stopping all devices:
[ 3142.776265][ T2649]
[ 3142.777159][ T2649] ======================================================
[ 3142.780039][ T2649] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 3142.782869][ T2649] 5.2.0-rc4-lp151.20-default+ #1 Tainted: G W
[ 3142.785684][ T2649] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 3142.788479][ T2649] kworker/3:67/2649 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 3142.790738][ T2649] 00000000aaf02291 ((wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq){+.+.}, at: flush_workqueue+0x87/0x4c0
[ 3142.794678][ T2649]
[ 3142.794678][ T2649] but task is already holding lock:
[ 3142.797402][ T2649] 000000004fcf89c5 (&bch_register_lock){+.+.}, at: cached_dev_free+0x17/0x120 [bcache]
[ 3142.801462][ T2649]
[ 3142.801462][ T2649] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 3142.801462][ T2649]
[ 3142.805277][ T2649]
[ 3142.805277][ T2649] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 3142.808902][ T2649]
[ 3142.808902][ T2649] -> #2 (&bch_register_lock){+.+.}:
[ 3142.812396][ T2649] __mutex_lock+0x7a/0x9d0
[ 3142.814184][ T2649] cached_dev_free+0x17/0x120 [bcache]
[ 3142.816415][ T2649] process_one_work+0x2a4/0x640
[ 3142.818413][ T2649] worker_thread+0x39/0x3f0
[ 3142.820276][ T2649] kthread+0x125/0x140
[ 3142.822061][ T2649] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
[ 3142.823965][ T2649]
[ 3142.823965][ T2649] -> #1 ((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2){+.+.}:
[ 3142.827244][ T2649] process_one_work+0x277/0x640
[ 3142.829160][ T2649] worker_thread+0x39/0x3f0
[ 3142.830958][ T2649] kthread+0x125/0x140
[ 3142.832674][ T2649] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
[ 3142.834915][ T2649]
[ 3142.834915][ T2649] -> #0 ((wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq){+.+.}:
[ 3142.838121][ T2649] lock_acquire+0xb4/0x1c0
[ 3142.840025][ T2649] flush_workqueue+0xae/0x4c0
[ 3142.842035][ T2649] drain_workqueue+0xa9/0x180
[ 3142.844042][ T2649] destroy_workqueue+0x17/0x250
[ 3142.846142][ T2649] cached_dev_free+0x52/0x120 [bcache]
[ 3142.848530][ T2649] process_one_work+0x2a4/0x640
[ 3142.850663][ T2649] worker_thread+0x39/0x3f0
[ 3142.852464][ T2649] kthread+0x125/0x140
[ 3142.854106][ T2649] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
[ 3142.855880][ T2649]
[ 3142.855880][ T2649] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 3142.855880][ T2649]
[ 3142.859663][ T2649] Chain exists of:
[ 3142.859663][ T2649] (wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq --> (work_completion)(&cl->work)#2 --> &bch_register_lock
[ 3142.859663][ T2649]
[ 3142.865424][ T2649] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 3142.865424][ T2649]
[ 3142.868022][ T2649] CPU0 CPU1
[ 3142.869885][ T2649] ---- ----
[ 3142.871751][ T2649] lock(&bch_register_lock);
[ 3142.873379][ T2649] lock((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2);
[ 3142.876399][ T2649] lock(&bch_register_lock);
[ 3142.879727][ T2649] lock((wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq);
[ 3142.882064][ T2649]
[ 3142.882064][ T2649] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 3142.882064][ T2649]
[ 3142.885060][ T2649] 3 locks held by kworker/3:67/2649:
[ 3142.887245][ T2649] #0: 00000000e774cdd0 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x21e/0x640
[ 3142.890815][ T2649] #1: 00000000f7df89da ((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x21e/0x640
[ 3142.894884][ T2649] #2: 000000004fcf89c5 (&bch_register_lock){+.+.}, at: cached_dev_free+0x17/0x120 [bcache]
[ 3142.898797][ T2649]
[ 3142.898797][ T2649] stack backtrace:
[ 3142.900961][ T2649] CPU: 3 PID: 2649 Comm: kworker/3:67 Tainted: G W 5.2.0-rc4-lp151.20-default+ #1
[ 3142.904789][ T2649] Hardware name: VMware, Inc. VMware Virtual Platform/440BX Desktop Reference Platform, BIOS 6.00 04/13/2018
[ 3142.909168][ T2649] Workqueue: events cached_dev_free [bcache]
[ 3142.911422][ T2649] Call Trace:
[ 3142.912656][ T2649] dump_stack+0x85/0xcb
[ 3142.914181][ T2649] print_circular_bug+0x19a/0x1f0
[ 3142.916193][ T2649] __lock_acquire+0x16cd/0x1850
[ 3142.917936][ T2649] ? __lock_acquire+0x6a8/0x1850
[ 3142.919704][ T2649] ? lock_acquire+0xb4/0x1c0
[ 3142.921335][ T2649] ? find_held_lock+0x34/0xa0
[ 3142.923052][ T2649] lock_acquire+0xb4/0x1c0
[ 3142.924635][ T2649] ? flush_workqueue+0x87/0x4c0
[ 3142.926375][ T2649] flush_workqueue+0xae/0x4c0
[ 3142.928047][ T2649] ? flush_workqueue+0x87/0x4c0
[ 3142.929824][ T2649] ? drain_workqueue+0xa9/0x180
[ 3142.931686][ T2649] drain_workqueue+0xa9/0x180
[ 3142.933534][ T2649] destroy_workqueue+0x17/0x250
[ 3142.935787][ T2649] cached_dev_free+0x52/0x120 [bcache]
[ 3142.937795][ T2649] process_one_work+0x2a4/0x640
[ 3142.939803][ T2649] worker_thread+0x39/0x3f0
[ 3142.941487][ T2649] ? process_one_work+0x640/0x640
[ 3142.943389][ T2649] kthread+0x125/0x140
[ 3142.944894][ T2649] ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70
[ 3142.947744][ T2649] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50
[ 3142.970358][ T2649] bcache: bcache_device_free() bcache0 stopped
Here is how the deadlock happens.
1) bcache_reboot() calls bcache_device_stop(), then inside
bcache_device_stop() BCACHE_DEV_CLOSING bit is set on d->flags.
Then closure_queue(&d->cl) is called to invoke cached_dev_flush().
2) In cached_dev_flush(), cached_dev_free() is called by continu_at().
3) In cached_dev_free(), when stopping the writeback kthread of the
cached device by kthread_stop(), dc->writeback_thread will be waken
up to quite the kthread while-loop, then cached_dev_put() is called
in bch_writeback_thread().
4) Calling cached_dev_put() in writeback kthread may drop dc->count to
0, then dc->detach kworker is scheduled, which is initialized as
cached_dev_detach_finish().
5) Inside cached_dev_detach_finish(), the last line of code is to call
closure_put(&dc->disk.cl), which drops the last reference counter of
closrure dc->disk.cl, then the callback cached_dev_flush() gets
called.
Now cached_dev_flush() is called for second time in the code path, the
first time is in step 2). And again bch_register_lock will be acquired
again, and a A-A lock (lockdep terminology) is happening.
The root cause of the above A-A lock is in cached_dev_free(), mutex
bch_register_lock is held before stopping writeback kthread and other
kworkers. Fortunately now we have variable 'bcache_is_reboot', which may
prevent device registration or unregistration during reboot/shutdown
time, so it is unncessary to hold bch_register_lock such early now.
This is how this patch fixes the reboot/shutdown time A-A lock issue:
After moving mutex_lock(&bch_register_lock) to a later location where
before atomic_read(&dc->running) in cached_dev_free(), such A-A lock
problem can be solved without any reboot time registration race.
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
---
drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
index 15916b3ec8bf..f376ba7e4d3f 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
@@ -1223,8 +1223,6 @@ static void cached_dev_free(struct closure *cl)
{
struct cached_dev *dc = container_of(cl, struct cached_dev, disk.cl);
- mutex_lock(&bch_register_lock);
-
if (test_and_clear_bit(BCACHE_DEV_WB_RUNNING, &dc->disk.flags))
cancel_writeback_rate_update_dwork(dc);
@@ -1235,6 +1233,8 @@ static void cached_dev_free(struct closure *cl)
if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dc->status_update_thread))
kthread_stop(dc->status_update_thread);
+ mutex_lock(&bch_register_lock);
+
if (atomic_read(&dc->running))
bd_unlink_disk_holder(dc->bdev, dc->disk.disk);
bcache_device_free(&dc->disk);
--
2.16.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-12 16:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-12 16:19 [PATCH 0/4] Fixes for potential deadlock during reboot Coly Li
2019-06-12 16:19 ` [PATCH 1/4] bcache: avoid a deadlock in bcache_reboot() Coly Li
2019-06-12 16:19 ` [PATCH 2/4] bcache: acquire bch_register_lock later in cached_dev_detach_finish() Coly Li
2019-06-12 16:19 ` Coly Li [this message]
2019-06-12 16:19 ` [PATCH 4/4] bcache: fix potential deadlock in cached_def_free() Coly Li
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=20190612161958.2082-4-colyli@suse.de \
--to=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.