On Mon, 6 May 2013 14:54:53 -0700
Colin Cross <ccr...@android.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 May 2013 12:57:54 -0700
> > Colin Cross <ccr...@android.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 3 May 2013 14:04:09 -0700
> >> > Colin Cross <ccr...@android.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> NFS calls the freezable helpers with locks held, which is unsafe
> >> >> and caused lockdep warnings when 6aa9707 "lockdep: check that no
> >> >> locks held at freeze time" was applied (reverted in dbf520a).
> >> >> Add new *_unsafe versions of the helpers that will not run the
> >> >> lockdep test when 6aa9707 is reapplied, and call them from NFS.
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccr...@android.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> fs/nfs/inode.c | 2 +-
> >> >> fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c | 2 +-
> >> >> fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 4 ++--
> >> >> include/linux/freezer.h | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >> >> net/sunrpc/sched.c | 2 +-
> >> >> 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/inode.c b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> >> >> index 1f94167..53cbee5 100644
> >> >> --- a/fs/nfs/inode.c
> >> >> +++ b/fs/nfs/inode.c
> >> >> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ int nfs_wait_bit_killable(void *word)
> >> >> {
> >> >> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >> >> return -ERESTARTSYS;
> >> >> - freezable_schedule();
> >> >> + freezable_schedule_unsafe();
> >> >> return 0;
> >> >> }
> >> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nfs_wait_bit_killable);
> >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c
> >> >> index 43ea96c..ce90eb4 100644
> >> >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c
> >> >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs3proc.c
> >> >> @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ nfs3_rpc_wrapper(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, struct
> >> >> rpc_message *msg, int flags)
> >> >> res = rpc_call_sync(clnt, msg, flags);
> >> >> if (res != -EJUKEBOX)
> >> >> break;
> >> >> -
> >> >> freezable_schedule_timeout_killable(NFS_JUKEBOX_RETRY_TIME);
> >> >> +
> >> >> freezable_schedule_timeout_killable_unsafe(NFS_JUKEBOX_RETRY_TIME);
> >> >> res = -ERESTARTSYS;
> >> >> } while (!fatal_signal_pending(current));
> >> >> return res;
> >> >> diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> >> >> index 0ad025e..a236077 100644
> >> >> --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> >> >> +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> >> >> @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ static int nfs4_delay(struct rpc_clnt *clnt, long
> >> >> *timeout)
> >> >> *timeout = NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MIN;
> >> >> if (*timeout > NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX)
> >> >> *timeout = NFS4_POLL_RETRY_MAX;
> >> >> - freezable_schedule_timeout_killable(*timeout);
> >> >> + freezable_schedule_timeout_killable_unsafe(*timeout);
> >> >> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >> >> res = -ERESTARTSYS;
> >> >> *timeout <<= 1;
> >> >> @@ -4309,7 +4309,7 @@ int nfs4_proc_delegreturn(struct inode *inode,
> >> >> struct rpc_cred *cred, const nfs4
> >> >> static unsigned long
> >> >> nfs4_set_lock_task_retry(unsigned long timeout)
> >> >> {
> >> >> - freezable_schedule_timeout_killable(timeout);
> >> >> + freezable_schedule_timeout_killable_unsafe(timeout);
> >> >> timeout <<= 1;
> >> >> if (timeout > NFS4_LOCK_MAXTIMEOUT)
> >> >> return NFS4_LOCK_MAXTIMEOUT;
> >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/freezer.h b/include/linux/freezer.h
> >> >> index e70df40..5b31e21c 100644
> >> >> --- a/include/linux/freezer.h
> >> >> +++ b/include/linux/freezer.h
> >> >> @@ -46,7 +46,11 @@ extern int freeze_kernel_threads(void);
> >> >> extern void thaw_processes(void);
> >> >> extern void thaw_kernel_threads(void);
> >> >>
> >> >> -static inline bool try_to_freeze(void)
> >> >> +/*
> >> >> + * DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS FUNCTION
> >> >> + * If try_to_freeze causes a lockdep warning it means the caller may
> >> >> deadlock
> >> >> + */
> >> >> +static inline bool try_to_freeze_unsafe(void)
> >> >> {
> >> >> might_sleep();
> >> >> if (likely(!freezing(current)))
> >> >> @@ -54,6 +58,11 @@ static inline bool try_to_freeze(void)
> >> >> return __refrigerator(false);
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> +static inline bool try_to_freeze(void)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + return try_to_freeze_unsafe();
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> extern bool freeze_task(struct task_struct *p);
> >> >> extern bool set_freezable(void);
> >> >>
> >> >> @@ -115,6 +124,14 @@ static inline void freezer_count(void)
> >> >> try_to_freeze();
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> +/* DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS FUNCTION */
> >> >> +static inline void freezer_count_unsafe(void)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + current->flags &= ~PF_FREEZER_SKIP;
> >> >> + smp_mb();
> >> >> + try_to_freeze_unsafe();
> >> >> +}
> >> >> +
> >> >> /**
> >> >> * freezer_should_skip - whether to skip a task when determining frozen
> >> >> * state is reached
> >> >> @@ -152,6 +169,14 @@ static inline bool freezer_should_skip(struct
> >> >> task_struct *p)
> >> >> freezer_count(); \
> >> >> })
> >> >>
> >> >> +/* DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS FUNCTION */
> >> >> +#define freezable_schedule_unsafe() \
> >> >> +({ \
> >> >> + freezer_do_not_count(); \
> >> >> + schedule(); \
> >> >> + freezer_count_unsafe(); \
> >> >> +})
> >> >> +
> >> >> /* Like schedule_timeout_killable(), but should not block the freezer.
> >> >> */
> >> >> #define freezable_schedule_timeout_killable(timeout) \
> >> >> ({ \
> >> >> @@ -162,6 +187,16 @@ static inline bool freezer_should_skip(struct
> >> >> task_struct *p)
> >> >> __retval; \
> >> >> })
> >> >>
> >> >> +/* DO NOT ADD ANY NEW CALLERS OF THIS FUNCTION */
> >> >> +#define freezable_schedule_timeout_killable_unsafe(timeout) \
> >> >> +({ \
> >> >> + long __retval; \
> >> >> + freezer_do_not_count(); \
> >> >> + __retval = schedule_timeout_killable(timeout); \
> >> >> + freezer_count_unsafe(); \
> >> >> + __retval; \
> >> >> +})
> >> >> +
> >> >> /*
> >> >> * Freezer-friendly wrappers around wait_event_interruptible(),
> >> >> * wait_event_killable() and wait_event_interruptible_timeout(),
> >> >> originally
> >> >> @@ -225,9 +260,14 @@ static inline void set_freezable(void) {}
> >> >>
> >> >> #define freezable_schedule() schedule()
> >> >>
> >> >> +#define freezable_schedule_unsafe() schedule()
> >> >> +
> >> >> #define freezable_schedule_timeout_killable(timeout) \
> >> >> schedule_timeout_killable(timeout)
> >> >>
> >> >> +#define freezable_schedule_timeout_killable_unsafe(timeout) \
> >> >> + schedule_timeout_killable(timeout)
> >> >> +
> >> >> #define wait_event_freezable(wq, condition) \
> >> >> wait_event_interruptible(wq, condition)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/sched.c b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
> >> >> index f8529fc..8dcfadc 100644
> >> >> --- a/net/sunrpc/sched.c
> >> >> +++ b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
> >> >> @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static int rpc_wait_bit_killable(void *word)
> >> >> {
> >> >> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> >> >> return -ERESTARTSYS;
> >> >> - freezable_schedule();
> >> >> + freezable_schedule_unsafe();
> >> >> return 0;
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Looks reasonable, but note that CIFS uses wait_event_freezekillable
> >> > with locks held too, which will likely have the same problem and will
> >> > need the same workaround for now.
> >>
> >> I didn't see any lockdep warnings reported on the mailing list when
> >> the lockdep patch was previously applied, can you point me to the lock
> >> that is held when wait_event_freezkillable is called? I don't want to
> >> add an _unsafe call where its not needed and cause more confusion.
> >
> > It's pretty much all of the same VFS-level locks...
> >
> > Basically, when a process wants to send a synchronous SMB to a CIFS
> > server, it'll send off the request and then call wait_for_response() to
> > wait on the reply. If you need a particular call stack, then you can
> > look in the rmdir() codepath as an example:
> >
> > vfs_rmdir takes the i_mutex
> > cifs_rmdir (via the inode ops)
> > CIFSSMBRmDir (via the smb version ops)
> > SendReceive
> > wait_for_response
> >
> > ...at that point a freeze can occur while you're still holding the
> > i_mutex.
> >
> > There are many other possibilities for other codepaths that end up in
> > wait_for_response(). Once we get a solution in place for NFS, we'll
> > need to do something very similar for CIFS.
>
> Makes sense, I will add CIFS to the patch. Would you prefer it in the
> same or separate patches.
A new patch on top of this one would be fine with me, but I don't feel
strongly either way.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
