From: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> To: Alexander Polakov <apolyakov@beget.ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> Subject: [PATCH v2] fs/dcache.c: fix spin lockup issue on nlru->lock Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:09:15 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1498027155-4456-1-git-send-email-stummala@codeaurora.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <6ab790fe-de97-9495-0d3b-804bae5d7fbb@codeaurora.org> __list_lru_walk_one() acquires nlru spin lock (nlru->lock) for longer duration if there are more number of items in the lru list. As per the current code, it can hold the spin lock for upto maximum UINT_MAX entries at a time. So if there are more number of items in the lru list, then "BUG: spinlock lockup suspected" is observed in the below path - [<ffffff8eca0fb0bc>] spin_bug+0x90 [<ffffff8eca0fb220>] do_raw_spin_lock+0xfc [<ffffff8ecafb7798>] _raw_spin_lock+0x28 [<ffffff8eca1ae884>] list_lru_add+0x28 [<ffffff8eca1f5dac>] dput+0x1c8 [<ffffff8eca1eb46c>] path_put+0x20 [<ffffff8eca1eb73c>] terminate_walk+0x3c [<ffffff8eca1eee58>] path_lookupat+0x100 [<ffffff8eca1f00fc>] filename_lookup+0x6c [<ffffff8eca1f0264>] user_path_at_empty+0x54 [<ffffff8eca1e066c>] SyS_faccessat+0xd0 [<ffffff8eca084e30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24 This nlru->lock is acquired by another CPU in this path - [<ffffff8eca1f5fd0>] d_lru_shrink_move+0x34 [<ffffff8eca1f6180>] dentry_lru_isolate_shrink+0x48 [<ffffff8eca1aeafc>] __list_lru_walk_one.isra.10+0x94 [<ffffff8eca1aec34>] list_lru_walk_node+0x40 [<ffffff8eca1f6620>] shrink_dcache_sb+0x60 [<ffffff8eca1e56a8>] do_remount_sb+0xbc [<ffffff8eca1e583c>] do_emergency_remount+0xb0 [<ffffff8eca0ba510>] process_one_work+0x228 [<ffffff8eca0bb158>] worker_thread+0x2e0 [<ffffff8eca0c040c>] kthread+0xf4 [<ffffff8eca084dd0>] ret_from_fork+0x10 Fix this lockup by reducing the number of entries to be shrinked from the lru list to 1024 at once. Also, add cond_resched() before processing the lru list again. Link: http://marc.info/?t=149722864900001&r=1&w=2 Fix-suggested-by: Jan kara <jack@suse.cz> Fix-suggested-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> --- v2: patch shrink_dcache_sb() instead of list_lru_walk() --- fs/dcache.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c index cddf397..c8ca150 100644 --- a/fs/dcache.c +++ b/fs/dcache.c @@ -1133,10 +1133,11 @@ void shrink_dcache_sb(struct super_block *sb) LIST_HEAD(dispose); freed = list_lru_walk(&sb->s_dentry_lru, - dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, UINT_MAX); + dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, 1024); this_cpu_sub(nr_dentry_unused, freed); shrink_dentry_list(&dispose); + cond_resched(); } while (freed > 0); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrink_dcache_sb); -- Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> To: Alexander Polakov <apolyakov@beget.ru>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> Subject: [PATCH v2] fs/dcache.c: fix spin lockup issue on nlru->lock Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:09:15 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1498027155-4456-1-git-send-email-stummala@codeaurora.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <6ab790fe-de97-9495-0d3b-804bae5d7fbb@codeaurora.org> __list_lru_walk_one() acquires nlru spin lock (nlru->lock) for longer duration if there are more number of items in the lru list. As per the current code, it can hold the spin lock for upto maximum UINT_MAX entries at a time. So if there are more number of items in the lru list, then "BUG: spinlock lockup suspected" is observed in the below path - [<ffffff8eca0fb0bc>] spin_bug+0x90 [<ffffff8eca0fb220>] do_raw_spin_lock+0xfc [<ffffff8ecafb7798>] _raw_spin_lock+0x28 [<ffffff8eca1ae884>] list_lru_add+0x28 [<ffffff8eca1f5dac>] dput+0x1c8 [<ffffff8eca1eb46c>] path_put+0x20 [<ffffff8eca1eb73c>] terminate_walk+0x3c [<ffffff8eca1eee58>] path_lookupat+0x100 [<ffffff8eca1f00fc>] filename_lookup+0x6c [<ffffff8eca1f0264>] user_path_at_empty+0x54 [<ffffff8eca1e066c>] SyS_faccessat+0xd0 [<ffffff8eca084e30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24 This nlru->lock is acquired by another CPU in this path - [<ffffff8eca1f5fd0>] d_lru_shrink_move+0x34 [<ffffff8eca1f6180>] dentry_lru_isolate_shrink+0x48 [<ffffff8eca1aeafc>] __list_lru_walk_one.isra.10+0x94 [<ffffff8eca1aec34>] list_lru_walk_node+0x40 [<ffffff8eca1f6620>] shrink_dcache_sb+0x60 [<ffffff8eca1e56a8>] do_remount_sb+0xbc [<ffffff8eca1e583c>] do_emergency_remount+0xb0 [<ffffff8eca0ba510>] process_one_work+0x228 [<ffffff8eca0bb158>] worker_thread+0x2e0 [<ffffff8eca0c040c>] kthread+0xf4 [<ffffff8eca084dd0>] ret_from_fork+0x10 Fix this lockup by reducing the number of entries to be shrinked from the lru list to 1024 at once. Also, add cond_resched() before processing the lru list again. Link: http://marc.info/?t=149722864900001&r=1&w=2 Fix-suggested-by: Jan kara <jack@suse.cz> Fix-suggested-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> --- v2: patch shrink_dcache_sb() instead of list_lru_walk() --- fs/dcache.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c index cddf397..c8ca150 100644 --- a/fs/dcache.c +++ b/fs/dcache.c @@ -1133,10 +1133,11 @@ void shrink_dcache_sb(struct super_block *sb) LIST_HEAD(dispose); freed = list_lru_walk(&sb->s_dentry_lru, - dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, UINT_MAX); + dentry_lru_isolate_shrink, &dispose, 1024); this_cpu_sub(nr_dentry_unused, freed); shrink_dentry_list(&dispose); + cond_resched(); } while (freed > 0); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(shrink_dcache_sb); -- Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-21 6:39 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-06-12 0:47 [PATCH] mm/list_lru.c: use cond_resched_lock() for nlru->lock Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-12 0:47 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-12 13:11 ` Jan Kara 2017-06-12 13:11 ` Jan Kara 2017-06-15 21:05 ` Andrew Morton 2017-06-15 21:05 ` Andrew Morton 2017-06-16 14:44 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-16 14:44 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-17 11:14 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-17 11:14 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-20 2:52 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-20 2:52 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-21 6:39 ` Sahitya Tummala [this message] 2017-06-21 6:39 ` [PATCH v2] fs/dcache.c: fix spin lockup issue on nlru->lock Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-21 16:31 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-21 16:31 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-22 16:31 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-22 16:31 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-22 17:49 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-22 17:49 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-28 6:07 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] mm/list_lru.c: fix list_lru_count_node() to be race free Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-28 6:07 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-28 6:07 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] fs/dcache.c: fix spin lockup issue on nlru->lock Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-28 6:07 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-28 17:18 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] mm/list_lru.c: fix list_lru_count_node() to be race free Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-28 17:18 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-29 3:39 ` [PATCH v4 " Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-29 3:39 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-07-01 16:28 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-07-01 16:28 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-06-29 3:39 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] fs/dcache.c: fix spin lockup issue on nlru->lock Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-29 3:39 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-29 22:48 ` Andrew Morton 2017-06-29 22:48 ` Andrew Morton 2017-06-30 3:16 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-06-30 3:16 ` Sahitya Tummala 2017-07-01 16:28 ` Vladimir Davydov 2017-07-01 16:28 ` Vladimir Davydov
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=1498027155-4456-1-git-send-email-stummala@codeaurora.org \ --to=stummala@codeaurora.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=apolyakov@beget.ru \ --cc=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \ --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \ /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: linkBe 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.