On 2013/11/26 22:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Juri hit the below lockdep report:
>
> [ 4.303391] ======================================================
> [ 4.303392] [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
> [ 4.303394] 3.12.0-dl-peterz+ #144 Not tainted
> [ 4.303395] ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 4.303397] kworker/u4:3/689 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
> [ 4.303399] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8114e63c>]
> new_slab+0x6c/0x290
> [ 4.303417]
> [ 4.303417] and this task is already holding:
> [ 4.303418] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at:
> [<ffffffff812d2dfb>] blk_execute_rq_nowait+0x5b/0x100
> [ 4.303431] which would create a new lock dependency:
> [ 4.303432] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} ->
> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}
> [ 4.303436]
>
> [ 4.303898] the dependencies between the lock to be acquired and
> SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
> [ 4.303918] -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...} ops: 2762 {
> [ 4.303922] HARDIRQ-ON-W at:
> [ 4.303923] [<ffffffff8108ab9a>]
> __lock_acquire+0x65a/0x1ff0
> [ 4.303926] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>]
> lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
> [ 4.303929] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
> [ 4.303931] [<ffffffff816ded6c>]
> ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [ 4.303933] SOFTIRQ-ON-W at:
> [ 4.303933] [<ffffffff8108abcc>]
> __lock_acquire+0x68c/0x1ff0
> [ 4.303935] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>]
> lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
> [ 4.303940] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
> [ 4.303955] [<ffffffff816ded6c>]
> ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [ 4.303959] INITIAL USE at:
> [ 4.303960] [<ffffffff8108a884>]
> __lock_acquire+0x344/0x1ff0
> [ 4.303963] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
> [ 4.303966] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
> [ 4.303969] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [ 4.303972] }
>
> Which reports that we take mems_allowed_seq with interrupts enabled. A
> little digging found that this can only be from
> cpuset_change_task_nodemask().
>
Yeah, the other one in set_mems_allowed() was fixed by John.
> This is an actual deadlock because an interrupt doing an allocation will
> hit get_mems_allowed()->...->__read_seqcount_begin(), which will spin
> forever waiting for the write side to complete.
>
> Cc: John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de>
> Reported-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lize...@huawei.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/
