From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] fs: Avoid to use lockdep information if it's turned off
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 08:49:19 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201110164919.GC9685@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201110054016.GC286534@boqun-archlinux>
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 01:40:16PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 05:49:25PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 09:37:37AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > Filipe Manana reported a warning followed by task hanging after attempts
> > > to freeze a filesystem[1]. The problem happened in a LOCKDEP=y kernel,
> > > and percpu_rwsem_is_held() provided incorrect results when
> > > debug_locks == 0. Although the behavior is caused by commit 4d004099a668
> > > ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion"): after that lock_is_held() and its
> > > friends always return true if debug_locks == 0. However, one could argue
> >
> > ...the silent trylock conversion with no checking of the return value is
> > completely broken. I already sent a patch to tear all this out:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/160494580419.772573.9286165021627298770.stgit@magnolia/T/#t
> >
>
> Thanks! That looks good to me. I'm all for removing that piece of code.
>
> While we are at it, I have to ask, when you hit the original problem
> (warning after trylock in __start_sb_write()), did you see any lockdep
> splat happened previously?
Yes. Every time I hit this there had been a lockdep splat earlier in the
fstests run, along with lockdep declaring that it was going offline.
--D
> Or just like Filipe, you hit that without
> seeing any lockdep splat happened before? Thanks! I'm trying to track
> down the silent lockdep turn-off.
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> > --D
> >
> > > that querying the lock holding information regardless if the lockdep
> > > turn-off status is inappropriate in the first place. Therefore instead
> > > of reverting lock_is_held() and its friends to the previous semantics,
> > > add the explicit checking in fs code to avoid use the lock holding
> > > information if lockdpe is turned off. And since the original problem
> > > also happened with a silent lockdep turn-off, put a warning if
> > > debug_locks is 0, which will help us spot the silent lockdep turn-offs.
> > >
> > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/a5cf643b-842f-7a60-73c7-85d738a9276f@suse.com/
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
> > > Fixes: 4d004099a668 ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion")
> > > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
> > > Cc: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
> > > Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > > ---
> > > Hi Filipe,
> > >
> > > I use the slightly different approach to fix this problem, and I think
> > > it should have the similar effect with my previous fix[2], except that
> > > you will hit a warning if the problem happens now. The warning is added
> > > on purpose because I don't want to miss a silent lockdep turn-off.
> > >
> > > Could you and other fs folks give this a try?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Boqun
> > >
> > > [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201103140828.GA2713762@boqun-archlinux/
> > >
> > > fs/super.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> > > index a51c2083cd6b..1803c8d999e9 100644
> > > --- a/fs/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/super.c
> > > @@ -1659,12 +1659,23 @@ int __sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool wait)
> > > * twice in some cases, which is OK only because we already hold a
> > > * freeze protection also on higher level. Due to these cases we have
> > > * to use wait == F (trylock mode) which must not fail.
> > > + *
> > > + * Note: lockdep can only prove correct information if debug_locks != 0
> > > */
> > > if (wait) {
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < level - 1; i++)
> > > if (percpu_rwsem_is_held(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + i)) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * XXX: the WARN_ON_ONCE() here is to help
> > > + * track down silent lockdep turn-off, i.e.
> > > + * this warning is triggered, but no lockdep
> > > + * splat is reported.
> > > + */
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!debug_locks))
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > force_trylock = true;
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > --
> > > 2.29.2
> > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-10 16:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-10 1:37 [RFC] fs: Avoid to use lockdep information if it's turned off Boqun Feng
2020-11-10 1:49 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-11-10 5:40 ` Boqun Feng
2020-11-10 16:49 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2020-11-10 15:33 ` David Sterba
2020-11-11 14:01 ` David Sterba
2020-11-12 3:22 ` Boqun Feng
2020-11-13 17:19 ` David Sterba
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=20201110164919.GC9685@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=fdmanana@gmail.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nborisov@suse.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).