From: John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org>
3.12-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
===============
commit db751fe3ea6880ff5ac5abe60cb7b80deb5a4140 upstream.
After adding lockdep support to seqlock/seqcount structures,
I started seeing the following warning:
[ 1.070907] ======================================================
[ 1.072015] [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
[ 1.073181] 3.11.0+ #67 Not tainted
[ 1.073801] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 1.074882] kworker/u4:2/708 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
[ 1.076088] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81187d7f>]
new_slab+0x5f/0x280
[ 1.077572]
[ 1.077572] and this task is already holding:
[ 1.078593] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff81339f03>]
blk_execute_rq_nowait+0x53/0xf0
[ 1.080042] which would create a new lock dependency:
[ 1.080042] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} ->
(&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock:
[ 1.080042] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}
[ 1.080042] ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-safe at:
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810ec179>] __lock_acquire+0x5b9/0x1db0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810edfe5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x130
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff818968a1>] _raw_spin_lock+0x41/0x80
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81560c9e>] scsi_device_unbusy+0x7e/0xd0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff8155a612>] scsi_finish_command+0x32/0xf0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81560e91>] scsi_softirq_done+0xa1/0x130
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff8133b0f3>] blk_done_softirq+0x73/0x90
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81095dc0>] __do_softirq+0x110/0x2f0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff81095fcd>] run_ksoftirqd+0x2d/0x60
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810bc506>] smpboot_thread_fn+0x156/0x1e0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810b3916>] kthread+0xd6/0xe0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff818980ac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] to a SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
[ 1.080042] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}
[ 1.080042] ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe at:
[ 1.080042] ... [<ffffffff810ec1d3>] __lock_acquire+0x613/0x1db0
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810edfe5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x130
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff810b3df2>] kthreadd+0x82/0x180
[ 1.080042] [<ffffffff818980ac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] CPU0 CPU1
[ 1.080042] ---- ----
[ 1.080042] lock(&p->mems_allowed_seq);
[ 1.080042] local_irq_disable();
[ 1.080042] lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock);
[ 1.080042] lock(&p->mems_allowed_seq);
[ 1.080042] <Interrupt>
[ 1.080042] lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock);
[ 1.080042]
[ 1.080042] *** DEADLOCK ***
The issue stems from the kthreadd() function calling set_mems_allowed
with irqs enabled. While its possibly unlikely for the actual deadlock
to trigger, a fix is fairly simple: disable irqs before taking the
mems_allowed_seq lock.
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lize...@huawei.com>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <da...@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Link:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1381186321-4906-4-git-send-email-john.stu...@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jsl...@suse.cz>
---
include/linux/cpuset.h | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h
index a7ebb89ae9fb..ade2390ffe92 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
@@ -132,10 +132,14 @@ static inline bool read_mems_allowed_retry(unsigned int
seq)
static inline void set_mems_allowed(nodemask_t nodemask)
{
+ unsigned long flags;
+
task_lock(current);
+ local_irq_save(flags);
write_seqcount_begin(¤t->mems_allowed_seq);
current->mems_allowed = nodemask;
write_seqcount_end(¤t->mems_allowed_seq);
+ local_irq_restore(flags);
task_unlock(current);
}
--
2.8.2
