On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 01:21:04PM +0000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Josef reported a HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected by
> lockdep:
>
> [ 1270.472259] WARNING: HARDIRQ-safe -> HARDIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
> [ 1270.472783] 4.14.0-rc1-xfstests-12888-g76833e8 #110 Not tainted
> [ 1270.473240] -----------------------------------------------------
> [ 1270.473710] kworker/u5:2/5157 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to
> acquire:
> [ 1270.474239] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8da253d2>]
> __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xa2/0x280
> [ 1270.474994]
> [ 1270.474994] and this task is already holding:
> [ 1270.475440] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8d2992f6>]
> worker_thread+0x366/0x3c0
> [ 1270.476046] which would create a new lock dependency:
> [ 1270.476436] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.} -> (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
> [ 1270.476949]
> [ 1270.476949] but this new dependency connects a HARDIRQ-irq-safe lock:
> [ 1270.477553] (&pool->lock/1){-.-.}
> ...
> [ 1270.488900] to a HARDIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
> [ 1270.489327] (&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock){+.+.}
> ...
> [ 1270.494735] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 1270.494735]
> [ 1270.495250] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 1270.495600] ---- ----
> [ 1270.495947] lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
> [ 1270.496295] local_irq_disable();
> [ 1270.496753] lock(&pool->lock/1);
> [ 1270.497205]
> lock(&(&lock->wait_lock)->rlock);
> [ 1270.497744] <Interrupt>
> [ 1270.497948] lock(&pool->lock/1);
>
> , which will cause a irq inversion deadlock if the above lock scenario
> happens.
>
> The root cause of this safe -> unsafe lock order is the
> mutex_unlock(pool->manager_arb) in manage_workers() with pool->lock
> held.
>
> Unlocking mutex while holding an irq spinlock was never safe and this
> problem has been around forever but it never got noticed because the
> only time the mutex is usually trylocked while holding irqlock making
> actual failures very unlikely and lockdep annotation missed the
> condition until the recent b9c16a0e1f73 ("locking/mutex: Fix
> lockdep_assert_held() fail").
>
> Using mutex for pool->manager_arb has always been a bit of stretch.
> It primarily is an mechanism to arbitrate managership between workers
> which can easily be done with a pool flag. The only reason it became
> a mutex is that pool destruction path wants to exclude parallel
> managing operations.
>
> This patch replaces the mutex with a new pool flag POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE
> and make the destruction path wait for the current manager on a wait
> queue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <t...@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> Cc: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com>
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> Hello,
>
> Boqun, thanks for the patch and explanation and I shamelessly lifted
> parts of your patch description. I took an alternative approach
That's find ;-)
> because there's no reason to make this any more complex when the issue
> is essentially caused by abusing mutex.
>
Agreed.
> The patch seems to work fine but, Lai, can you please review the
> patch?
>
> Thanks.
>
> kernel/workqueue.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index 64d0edf..8739b6de 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ enum {
> * attach_mutex to avoid changing binding state while
> * worker_attach_to_pool() is in progress.
> */
> + POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE = 1 << 0, /* being managed */
> POOL_DISASSOCIATED = 1 << 2, /* cpu can't serve workers */
>
> /* worker flags */
> @@ -165,7 +166,6 @@ struct worker_pool {
> /* L: hash of busy workers */
>
> /* see manage_workers() for details on the two manager mutexes */
> - struct mutex manager_arb; /* manager arbitration */
> struct worker *manager; /* L: purely informational */
> struct mutex attach_mutex; /* attach/detach exclusion */
> struct list_head workers; /* A: attached workers */
> @@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ static struct workqueue_attrs
> *wq_update_unbound_numa_attrs_buf;
>
> static DEFINE_MUTEX(wq_pool_mutex); /* protects pools and workqueues list */
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(wq_mayday_lock); /* protects wq->maydays list */
> +static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(wq_manager_wait); /* wait for manager to go
> away */
I think this wait_queue_head better be a per-pool one rather than shared
among pools?
>
> static LIST_HEAD(workqueues); /* PR: list of all workqueues */
> static bool workqueue_freezing; /* PL: have wqs started
> freezing? */
> @@ -801,7 +802,7 @@ static bool need_to_create_worker(struct worker_pool
> *pool)
> /* Do we have too many workers and should some go away? */
> static bool too_many_workers(struct worker_pool *pool)
> {
> - bool managing = mutex_is_locked(&pool->manager_arb);
> + bool managing = pool->flags & POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
> int nr_idle = pool->nr_idle + managing; /* manager is considered idle */
> int nr_busy = pool->nr_workers - nr_idle;
>
> @@ -1980,24 +1981,17 @@ static bool manage_workers(struct worker *worker)
> {
> struct worker_pool *pool = worker->pool;
>
> - /*
> - * Anyone who successfully grabs manager_arb wins the arbitration
> - * and becomes the manager. mutex_trylock() on pool->manager_arb
> - * failure while holding pool->lock reliably indicates that someone
> - * else is managing the pool and the worker which failed trylock
> - * can proceed to executing work items. This means that anyone
> - * grabbing manager_arb is responsible for actually performing
> - * manager duties. If manager_arb is grabbed and released without
> - * actual management, the pool may stall indefinitely.
> - */
> - if (!mutex_trylock(&pool->manager_arb))
> + if (pool->flags & POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE)
> return false;
> +
> + pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
> pool->manager = worker;
>
> maybe_create_worker(pool);
>
> pool->manager = NULL;
> - mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_arb);
> + pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
> + wake_up(&wq_manager_wait);
> return true;
> }
>
> @@ -3248,7 +3242,6 @@ static int init_worker_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
> setup_timer(&pool->mayday_timer, pool_mayday_timeout,
> (unsigned long)pool);
>
> - mutex_init(&pool->manager_arb);
> mutex_init(&pool->attach_mutex);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&pool->workers);
>
> @@ -3318,13 +3311,14 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
> hash_del(&pool->hash_node);
>
> /*
> - * Become the manager and destroy all workers. Grabbing
> - * manager_arb prevents @pool's workers from blocking on
> - * attach_mutex.
> + * Become the manager and destroy all workers. Becoming manager
> + * prevents @pool's workers from blocking on attach_mutex.
> */
> - mutex_lock(&pool->manager_arb);
> -
> spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
> + wait_event_lock_irq(wq_manager_wait,
> + !(pool->flags & POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE), pool->lock);
> + pool->flags |= POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
> +
> while ((worker = first_idle_worker(pool)))
> destroy_worker(worker);
> WARN_ON(pool->nr_workers || pool->nr_idle);
> @@ -3338,7 +3332,10 @@ static void put_unbound_pool(struct worker_pool *pool)
> if (pool->detach_completion)
> wait_for_completion(pool->detach_completion);
>
> - mutex_unlock(&pool->manager_arb);
> + spin_lock_irq(&pool->lock);
> + pool->flags &= ~POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE;
> + wake_up(&wq_manager_wait);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&pool->lock);
>
Is the above code necesarry? IIUC, we are going to free the pool
entirely, so whether manager is active is pointless here and no one is
waiting for the ->flags of *this* pool to be !POOL_MANAGER_ACTIVE.
Am I missing something subtle here?
Regards,
Boqun
> /* shut down the timers */
> del_timer_sync(&pool->idle_timer);
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
