All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tj@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: lockdep warning while reading sysfs
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 23:43:19 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2c9aaa31-d0b7-bc20-f109-751a2fccfb88@lca.pw> (raw)

LTP: starting read_all_sys (read_all -d /sys -q -r 10 -e /sys/power/wakeup_count)

Suppose this simply by reading files in /sys/kernel/slab/* would trigger this.
Basically, it acquired kn->count#69 in kernfs_seq_start():

mutex_lock(&of->mutex);
if (!kernfs_get_active(of->kn))

in kernfs_get_active():

if (kernfs_lockdep(kn))
	rwsem_acquire_read(&kn->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);

Then, it will acquires mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem in show_slab_objects() ->
get_online_mems()

Then, another CPU acquired mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem, and then calls
secondary_startup() I guess it it from the CPU hotplug path to trigger a deadlock.

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.0.0-rc1+ #60 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
read_all/7952 is trying to acquire lock:
0000000019f12603 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: show_slab_objects+0x16c/0x450

but task is already holding lock:
000000008804717f (kn->count#69){++++}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x79/0x170

which lock already depends on the new lock.


the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #3 (kn->count#69){++++}:
       __lock_acquire+0x728/0x1200
       lock_acquire+0x269/0x5a0
       __kernfs_remove+0x72f/0x9a0
       kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x45/0x90
       sysfs_remove_link+0x3c/0xa0
       sysfs_slab_add+0x1bd/0x330
       __kmem_cache_create+0x166/0x1c0
       create_cache+0xcf/0x1f0
       kmem_cache_create_usercopy+0x1aa/0x270
       kmem_cache_create+0x16/0x20
       mlx5_init_fs+0x195/0x1a10 [mlx5_core]
       mlx5_load_one+0x1106/0x1e90 [mlx5_core]
       init_one+0x864/0xd60 [mlx5_core]
       local_pci_probe+0xda/0x190
       work_for_cpu_fn+0x56/0xa0
       process_one_work+0xad7/0x1b80
       worker_thread+0x8ff/0x1370
       kthread+0x32c/0x3f0
       ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50

-> #2 (slab_mutex){+.+.}:
       __lock_acquire+0x728/0x1200
       lock_acquire+0x269/0x5a0
       __mutex_lock+0x168/0x1730
       mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
       kmem_cache_create_usercopy+0x45/0x270
       kmem_cache_create+0x16/0x20
       ptlock_cache_init+0x24/0x2d
       start_kernel+0x40e/0x7e0
       x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26
       x86_64_start_kernel+0xef/0xf6
       secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0

-> #1 (memcg_cache_ids_sem){++++}:
       ptlock_cache_init+0x24/0x2d
       start_kernel+0x40e/0x7e0
       x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26
       x86_64_start_kernel+0xef/0xf6
       secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0

-> #0 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
       validate_chain.isra.14+0x11af/0x3b50
       __lock_acquire+0x728/0x1200
       lock_acquire+0x269/0x5a0
       get_online_mems+0x3d/0x80
       show_slab_objects+0x16c/0x450
       total_objects_show+0x13/0x20
       slab_attr_show+0x1e/0x30
       sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x1d5/0x470
       kernfs_seq_show+0x1fa/0x2c0
       seq_read+0x3f7/0x1050
       kernfs_fop_read+0x126/0x650
       __vfs_read+0xeb/0xf20
       vfs_read+0x103/0x290
       ksys_read+0xfa/0x260
       __x64_sys_read+0x73/0xb0
       do_syscall_64+0x18f/0xd23
       entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> slab_mutex --> kn->count#69

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(kn->count#69);
                               lock(slab_mutex);
                               lock(kn->count#69);
  lock(mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);


3 locks held by read_all/7952:
 #0: 0000000005c4ddec (&p->lock){+.+.}, at: seq_read+0x6b/0x1050
 #1: 00000000c2f2e854 (&of->mutex){+.+.}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x4f/0x170
 #2: 000000008804717f (kn->count#69){++++}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x79/0x170



             reply	other threads:[~2019-01-09  4:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-09  4:43 Qian Cai [this message]
2019-01-09  8:44 ` lockdep warning while reading sysfs Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-09 13:37   ` Qian Cai

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=2c9aaa31-d0b7-bc20-f109-751a2fccfb88@lca.pw \
    --to=cai@lca.pw \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --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: 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.