From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
To: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Subject: Xen Linux deadlock
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:05:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22b46162-435c-d971-5fa7-684c71950a62@arm.com> (raw)
Hi,
when booting Linux 4.12-rc4 as Dom0 under a recent Xen HV I saw the
following lockdep splat after running xencommons start:
root@junor1:~# bash /etc/init.d/xencommons start
Setting domain 0 name, domid and JSON config...
[ 247.979498] ======================================================
[ 247.985688] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 247.991882] 4.12.0-rc4-00022-gc4b25c0 #575 Not tainted
[ 247.997040] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 248.003232] xenbus/91 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 248.007875] (&u->msgbuffer_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffff00000863e904>]
xenbus_dev_queue_reply+0x3c/0x230
[ 248.017163]
[ 248.017163] but task is already holding lock:
[ 248.023096] (xb_write_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffff00000863a940>]
xenbus_thread+0x5f0/0x798
[ 248.031267]
[ 248.031267] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 248.031267]
[ 248.039615]
[ 248.039615] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 248.047176]
[ 248.047176] -> #1 (xb_write_mutex){+.+...}:
[ 248.052943] __lock_acquire+0x1728/0x1778
[ 248.057498] lock_acquire+0xc4/0x288
[ 248.061630] __mutex_lock+0x84/0x868
[ 248.065755] mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x50
[ 248.070227] xs_send+0x164/0x1f8
[ 248.074015] xenbus_dev_request_and_reply+0x6c/0x88
[ 248.079427] xenbus_file_write+0x260/0x420
[ 248.084073] __vfs_write+0x48/0x138
[ 248.088113] vfs_write+0xa8/0x1b8
[ 248.091983] SyS_write+0x54/0xb0
[ 248.095768] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
[ 248.099897]
[ 248.099897] -> #0 (&u->msgbuffer_mutex){+.+.+.}:
[ 248.106088] print_circular_bug+0x80/0x2e0
[ 248.110730] __lock_acquire+0x1768/0x1778
[ 248.115288] lock_acquire+0xc4/0x288
[ 248.119417] __mutex_lock+0x84/0x868
[ 248.123545] mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x50
[ 248.128016] xenbus_dev_queue_reply+0x3c/0x230
[ 248.133005] xenbus_thread+0x788/0x798
[ 248.137306] kthread+0x110/0x140
[ 248.141087] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x40
[ 248.145214]
[ 248.145214] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 248.145214]
[ 248.153383] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 248.153383]
[ 248.159403] CPU0 CPU1
[ 248.163960] ---- ----
[ 248.168518] lock(xb_write_mutex);
[ 248.172045] lock(&u->msgbuffer_mutex);
[ 248.178500] lock(xb_write_mutex);
[ 248.184514] lock(&u->msgbuffer_mutex);
[ 248.188470]
[ 248.188470] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 248.188470]
[ 248.194578] 2 locks held by xenbus/91:
[ 248.198360] #0: (xs_response_mutex){+.+...}, at:
[<ffff00000863a7b0>] xenbus_thread+0x460/0x798
[ 248.207218] #1: (xb_write_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffff00000863a940>]
xenbus_thread+0x5f0/0x798
[ 248.215818]
[ 248.215818] stack backtrace:
[ 248.220293] CPU: 0 PID: 91 Comm: xenbus Not tainted
4.12.0-rc4-00022-gc4b25c0 #575
[ 248.227858] Hardware name: ARM Juno development board (r1) (DT)
[ 248.233792] Call trace:
[ 248.236289] [<ffff00000808a748>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x270
[ 248.241707] [<ffff00000808aa94>] show_stack+0x24/0x30
[ 248.246782] [<ffff0000084caa98>] dump_stack+0xb8/0xf0
[ 248.251859] [<ffff000008139068>] print_circular_bug+0x1f8/0x2e0
[ 248.257787] [<ffff00000813c090>] __lock_acquire+0x1768/0x1778
[ 248.263548] [<ffff00000813c90c>] lock_acquire+0xc4/0x288
[ 248.268882] [<ffff000008bdb28c>] __mutex_lock+0x84/0x868
[ 248.274219] [<ffff000008bdbaac>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x50
[ 248.279889] [<ffff00000863e904>] xenbus_dev_queue_reply+0x3c/0x230
[ 248.286081] [<ffff00000863aad8>] xenbus_thread+0x788/0x798
[ 248.291585] [<ffff000008108070>] kthread+0x110/0x140
[ 248.296572] [<ffff000008083710>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x40
Apparently it's not easily reproducible, but Julien confirmed that the
dead lock condition as reported above is indeed in the Linux code.
Does anyone has an idea of how to fix this?
Cheers,
Andre.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next reply other threads:[~2017-06-07 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-07 15:05 Andre Przywara [this message]
2017-06-07 15:51 ` Xen Linux deadlock Juergen Gross
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=22b46162-435c-d971-5fa7-684c71950a62@arm.com \
--to=andre.przywara@arm.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=julien.grall@arm.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 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).