From: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
pmladek@suse.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm/hotplug: silence a lockdep splat with printk()
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:02:31 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DEF43337-68A2-4FDF-9B8C-795E017831DE@lca.pw> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200114155339.ad5eee63b9ff38b617ee6168@linux-foundation.org>
> On Jan 14, 2020, at 6:53 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, that was a long discussion with a lot of lockdep false positives.
>>> I believe I have made it clear that the console code shouldn't depend on
>>> memory allocation because that is just too fragile. If that is not
>>> possible for some reason then it has to be mentioned in the changelog.
>>> I really do not want us to add kludges to the MM code just because of
>>> printk deficiencies unless that is absolutely inevitable.
>>
>> I don't know how to convince you, but both random number generator and
>> printk() maintainers agreed to get ride of printk() with zone->lock
>> held as you can see in the approved commit mentioned in this patch
>> description because it is a whac-a-mole to fix other places. In other
>> word, the patch alone fixes quite a few false positives and potential
>> real deadlocks. Maybe Andrew please has a look at this directly?
>>
>
> Well, a few things.
>
> The changelog is quite poor. It doesn't describe the problem (console
> drivers allocating memory) not does it describe the solution
> (deferring the dump_page() until after release of zone->lock).
>
> So I changed it to this:
>
> : Some console drivers can perform memory allocation at inappropriate times,
> : which can result in lockdep warnings (and presumably deadlocks) if printk
> : is called with zone->lock held.
> :
> : By far the best fix is to reeducate those console drivers to not perform
> : these allocations, but this is proving difficult.
… but this is proving difficult because even if we fixed that directly, lockdep
Is still able to find an indirect dependency chain, for example [1]
CPU1: console_owner —> port_lock_key
CPU2: port_lock_key —> (&port->lock)->rlock
CPU3: (&port->lock)->rlock —> zone->lock
which will trigger a splat with
zone->lock —> console_owner
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/1570460350.5576.290.camel@lca.pw/
> :
> : Another but poorer approach is to call printk_deferred() when holding
> : zone->lock, but memory offline will call dump_page() which needs to defer
> : after the lock.
> :
> : So change has_unmovable_pages() so that it no longer calls dump_page()
> : itself - instead it passes the page's descripton (as a string) back to the
> : caller so that in the case of a has_unmovable_pages() failure, the caller
> : can call dump_page() after releasing zone->lock.
> :
> : While at it, remove a similar but unnecessary debug printk() as well.
>
> But I see a couple of other issues.
>
>> @@ -8290,8 +8290,10 @@ bool has_unmovable_pages(struct zone *zo
>> return false;
>> unmovable:
>> WARN_ON_ONCE(zone_idx(zone) == ZONE_MOVABLE);
>> - if (flags & REPORT_FAILURE)
>> - dump_page(pfn_to_page(pfn + iter), reason);
>> + if (flags & REPORT_FAILURE) {
>> + page = pfn_to_page(pfn + iter);
>
> This statement appears to be unnecessary.
dump_page() in set_migratetype_isolate() needs that “page”.
>
>> + strscpy(dump, reason, 64);
>> + }
>
>
> Also, that whole `reason' thing in has_unmovable_pages() is just there
> to tell us whether it was an "unmovable page" or a "CMA page". This
> doesn't seem terribly useful to me. Also, I expect that the
> dump_page() output will permit the user to determine that it was a CMA
> page anyway. If not, we can change dump_page() to add that info.
>
> So how about we remove that whole `reason' thing and possibly enhance
> dump_page()? The patch then becomes much simpler.
Sounds like a good idea. I’ll send a v2.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-15 1:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-14 20:11 [PATCH -next] mm/hotplug: silence a lockdep splat with printk() Qian Cai
2020-01-14 20:20 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-14 21:02 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-14 21:40 ` Qian Cai
2020-01-14 23:53 ` Andrew Morton
2020-01-15 1:02 ` Qian Cai [this message]
2020-01-15 1:19 ` Andrew Morton
2020-01-15 1:38 ` Qian Cai
2020-01-15 8:37 ` Michal Hocko
2020-01-15 9:52 ` Petr Mladek
[not found] ` <D6F57A74-7608-43BE-B909-4350DE95B68C@lca.pw>
2020-01-15 17:02 ` Petr Mladek
2020-01-15 17:16 ` Qian Cai
2020-01-16 14:29 ` Petr Mladek
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=DEF43337-68A2-4FDF-9B8C-795E017831DE@lca.pw \
--to=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
/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).