All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
	bhelgaas@google.com
Subject: Re: workqueue, pci: INFO: possible recursive locking detected
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:07:06 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ED51A2.6050909@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ED1D02.80205@cn.fujitsu.com>

On 07/22/2013 05:22 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 04:57 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/19/2013 07:17 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2013 04:23 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>  kernel/workqueue.c |    6 ++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>> index f02c4a4..07d9a67 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>> @@ -4754,7 +4754,13 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
>>>>  
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>>>> +	static struct lock_class_key __key;
>>>
>>> Sorry, this "static" should be removed.
>>>
>>
>> That didn't help either :-( Because it makes lockdep unhappy,
>> since the key isn't persistent.
>>
>> This is the patch I used:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index f02c4a4..7967e3b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -4754,7 +4754,13 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
>>  {
>>  	struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>> +	struct lock_class_key __key;
>> +	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
>> +	lockdep_init_map(&wfc.work.lockdep_map, "&wfc.work", &__key, 0);
>> +#else
>>  	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
>> +#endif
>>  	schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
>>  	flush_work(&wfc.work);
>>  	return wfc.ret;
>>
>>
>> And here are the new warnings:
>>
>>
>> Block layer SCSI generic (bsg) driver version 0.4 loaded (major 252)
>> io scheduler noop registered
>> io scheduler deadline registered
>> io scheduler cfq registered (default)
>> BUG: key ffff881039557b98 not in .data!
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1 at kernel/lockdep.c:2987 lockdep_init_map+0x168/0x170()
> 
> Sorry again.
> 
> From 0096b9dac2282ec03d59a3f665b92977381a18ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:08:51 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] workqueue: allow the function of work_on_cpu() can
>  call work_on_cpu()
> 
> If the @fn call work_on_cpu() again, the lockdep will complain:
> 
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 3.11.0-rc1-lockdep-fix-a #6 Not tainted
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> kworker/0:1/142 is trying to acquire lock:
>>  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81077100>] flush_work+0x0/0xb0
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>>  ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81075dd9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>>        CPU0
>>        ----
>>   lock((&wfc.work));
>>   lock((&wfc.work));
>>
>>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> It is false-positive lockdep report. In this sutiation,
> the two "wfc"s of the two work_on_cpu() are different,
> they are both on stack. flush_work() can't be deadlock.
> 
> To fix this, we need to avoid the lockdep checking in this case,
> But we don't want to change the flush_work(), so we use
> completion instead of flush_work() in the work_on_cpu().
> 
> Reported-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---

That worked, thanks a lot!

Tested-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

>  kernel/workqueue.c |    5 ++++-
>  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index f02c4a4..b021a45 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -4731,6 +4731,7 @@ struct work_for_cpu {
>  	long (*fn)(void *);
>  	void *arg;
>  	long ret;
> +	struct completion done;
>  };
> 
>  static void work_for_cpu_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -4738,6 +4739,7 @@ static void work_for_cpu_fn(struct work_struct *work)
>  	struct work_for_cpu *wfc = container_of(work, struct work_for_cpu, work);
> 
>  	wfc->ret = wfc->fn(wfc->arg);
> +	complete(&wfc->done);
>  }
> 
>  /**
> @@ -4755,8 +4757,9 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
>  	struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
> 
>  	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
> +	init_completion(&wfc.done);
>  	schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
> -	flush_work(&wfc.work);
> +	wait_for_completion(&wfc.done);
>  	return wfc.ret;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-22 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-16 14:41 workqueue, pci: INFO: possible recursive locking detected Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-07-17 10:07 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-18 20:23   ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-07-19  1:47     ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-19  8:57       ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-07-22 11:52         ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-22 15:37           ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
2013-07-22 21:38             ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-07-22 22:06               ` Yinghai Lu
2013-07-22 22:33               ` Alexander Duyck
2013-07-22 21:32           ` Tejun Heo
2013-07-23  1:23             ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-23 14:38               ` Tejun Heo
2013-07-24 10:31                 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-24 16:25                   ` [PATCH] workqueue: allow work_on_cpu() to be called recursively Tejun Heo
2013-07-27 17:11                     ` Srivatsa S. Bhat

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=51ED51A2.6050909@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=tj@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.