From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4248C2BA19 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 03:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF5E2072D for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 03:05:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="Jej/BoUU" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6FF5E2072D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0721B8E0075; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 23:05:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id F3EEE8E0001; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 23:05:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E064E8E0075; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 23:05:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0129.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.129]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41728E0001 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 23:05:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA18824556B for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 03:05:38 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76712227956.24.dolls16_3133055529a51 X-HE-Tag: dolls16_3133055529a51 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6020 Received: from mail-ot1-f68.google.com (mail-ot1-f68.google.com [209.85.210.68]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 03:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f68.google.com with SMTP id m18so1882088otq.9 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:05:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:mime-version; bh=Ny/fDBkxdwTaLeh6f3A963P77GPd8EJiQrLAHfr4rm0=; b=Jej/BoUUORsFXG/s5u/iKEhJ07/whIHtGVhl6gY2G329P86S3wsYUiobQuEyufBtuS 4B7Vdk+bf/sob5IMhTGnR86uEQtd2I2qQlG7AhF97tSQIjOBuvJUFRxz/JFHnV+C6ama auWCfmMYFKc18E6KyxO8DAebV8v8y5ljVjvntmZ8/WgYAaHcJaxp2HSI7ep5WQnO9KmG GhGWow/SvKNJrZtnV9cqfAj4wJp4P5/7gBK/mudkZ725HMvosfNmlUuFPHReIqPAN8cz HnIp+CERVmmG9l4uKs2mXJds6dqbuTxxJ4aWPtPeaPSb5r+1pvC8CeRaJr1WFMshJ6EJ 4D/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=Ny/fDBkxdwTaLeh6f3A963P77GPd8EJiQrLAHfr4rm0=; b=iGq0/DAYJLgqfBCtUl4bg3VvWh1aFIx1zTzzjmqKXOPSMoqtMkVVeVE7BKuYNa9Oe/ bsFPy5RpAl5y/g7T+Jn0eKzDNXEeidD3d02eQbcHrBSphC7RfkRoQPUrjy+nO/PTNwD9 E+EcdaeM5pbF6a2QW0Q2v72F8oeBZ1lEisILe+4QSHMKbQxHj8lT5jOzNaZjWJwC9g27 ueszfUNrsLXKJVSUcBUk2aMqJ5raUv6LzUc3OjZIOXLKbHYZ//jIRb2ZjxEnGF7DEaeS hYWABdJVxxc9cxwgaP5tmrkf3gUdJASiQywJ9LX4/MMiR9YyzoOeljuzTJg+LzSdRu1m vwNw== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Puah5QARpVAKdhE2TKlQe8xnSsM3JD6oOcPs1XPcChWyNZdJzlz/ LN2M8bqqELudENV1/PajvIcBOA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJOYybfLvmQj+aPhVTPV4m3mLCrrKqgZ6Dmp2x7ATrdMhQw0iBT13NiGcBJ9UHVu4QYxvlabQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1054:: with SMTP id b20mr9869574otp.19.1587006336936; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eggly.attlocal.net (172-10-233-147.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [172.10.233.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d84sm6867362oig.33.2020.04.15.20.05.35 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:05:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 20:05:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@eggly.anvils To: Yang Shi cc: Hugh Dickins , syzbot , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux MM , syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: possible deadlock in shmem_uncharge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <000000000000e5838c05a3152f53@google.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LSU 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 15 Apr 2020, Yang Shi wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 7:04 PM Hugh Dickins wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Yang Shi wrote: > > > > > > It looks shmem_uncharge() is just called by __split_huge_page() and > > > collapse_file(). The collapse_file() has acquired xa_lock with irq > > > disabled before acquiring info->lock, so it is safe. > > > __split_huge_page() is called with holding xa_lock with irq enabled, > > > but lru_lock is acquired with irq disabled before acquiring xa_lock. > > > > > > So, it is unnecessary to acquire info->lock with irq disabled in > > > shmem_uncharge(). Can syzbot try the below patch? > > > > But I disagree with the patch below. You're right that IRQ-disabling > > here is unnecessary, given its two callers; but I'm not sure that we > > want it to look different from shmem_charge() and all other info->lock > > takers; and, more importantly, I don't see how removing the redundant > > IRQ-saving below could make it any less liable to deadlock. > > Yes, I realized the patch can't suppress the lockdep splat. But, > actually I didn't understand how this deadlock could happen because > info_lock is acquired with IRQ disabled before acquiring > user_shm_lock. So, interrupt can't come in at all if I didn't miss > anything. I think the story it's trying to tell is this (but, like most of us, I do find Mr Lockdep embarrassingly difficult to understand; and I'm not much good at drawing race diagrams either): CPU0 was in user_shm_unlock(), it's got shmlock_user_lock, then an interrupt comes in. It's an endio kind of interrupt, which goes off to test_clear_page_writeback(), which wants the xa_lock on i_pages. Meanwhile, CPU1 was doing some SysV SHM locking, it's got as far as shmem_lock(), it has acquired info->lock, and goes off to user_shm_lock() which wants shmlock_user_lock. But sadly, CPU2 is splitting a shmem THP, calling shmem_uncharge() that wants info->lock while outer level holds xa_lock on i_pages: with interrupts properly disabled, but that doesn't help. Now, that story doesn't quite hold up as a deadlock, because shmem doesn't use writeback tags; and (unless you set shmem_enabled "force") I don't think there's a way to get shmem THPs in SysV SHM (and are they hole-punchable? maybe through MADV_REMOVE); so it looks like we're talking about different inodes. But lockdep is right to report it, and more thought might arrive at a more convincing scenario. Anyway, easily fixed and best fixed. (But now I think my patch must wait until tomorrow.) Hugh