All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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(&current->mems_allowed_seq);
 	current->mems_allowed = nodemask;
 	write_seqcount_end(&current->mems_allowed_seq);
+	local_irq_restore(flags);
 	task_unlock(current);
 }
 
-- 
1.8.1.2


  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-07 22:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ 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
2013-10-07 22:51   ` John Stultz
2013-10-23 18:23   ` John Stultz
2013-10-23 19:37     ` Julian Anastasov
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 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.