lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to destroy_workqueue()
Hello, guys.

On 04/01/2010 11:45 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> OK, but nobody should take cpu_maps_update_begin() under wq->lockdep_map,
>> in particular work->func() must not.
>>
>> I must have missed something, but it seems to me this patch tries to
>> supress the valid warning.
>>
>> Could you please clarify?
>
> Sure, below is the whole warning. Please teach me how this is valid.

I still have some trouble interpreting lockdep warnings. Please
correct me if I get something wrong.

> modprobe/5264 is trying to acquire lock:
> ((bond_dev->name)){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8108524a>] cleanup_workqueue_thread+0x2b/0x10b
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810631d1>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x1e/0x27

This (cpu hotplug -> wq) is the expected sequence. Plug cpu
hotplugging and then flush cpu workqueues.

> which lock already depends on the new lock.

But lockdep says the other way around has already happened.

> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #3 (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}:
> [<ffffffff810a6bc1>] validate_chain+0x1019/0x1540
> [<ffffffff810a7e75>] __lock_acquire+0xd8d/0xe55
> [<ffffffff810aa3a4>] lock_acquire+0x160/0x1af
> [<ffffffff815523f8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x64/0x4e9
> [<ffffffff810631d1>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x1e/0x27
> [<ffffffff810853cd>] destroy_workqueue+0x41/0x107
> [<ffffffffa0839d32>] bond_uninit+0x524/0x58a [bonding]
> [<ffffffff8146967b>] rollback_registered_many+0x205/0x2e3
> [<ffffffff81469783>] unregister_netdevice_many+0x2a/0x75
> [<ffffffff8147ada3>] __rtnl_kill_links+0x8b/0x9d
> [<ffffffff8147adea>] __rtnl_link_unregister+0x35/0x72
> [<ffffffff8147b293>] rtnl_link_unregister+0x2c/0x43
> [<ffffffffa0845ca6>] bonding_exit+0x5a/0x76 [bonding]
> [<ffffffff810b7749>] sys_delete_module+0x306/0x3b1
> [<ffffffff81003a5b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

This is bond_uninit() calling destroy_workqueue() but I don't get how
this thread would be already holding wq lock.

> -> #2 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> [<ffffffff810a6bc1>] validate_chain+0x1019/0x1540
> [<ffffffff810a7e75>] __lock_acquire+0xd8d/0xe55
> [<ffffffff810aa3a4>] lock_acquire+0x160/0x1af
> [<ffffffff815523f8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x64/0x4e9
> [<ffffffff8147af16>] rtnl_lock+0x1e/0x27
> [<ffffffffa0836779>] bond_mii_monitor+0x39f/0x74b [bonding]
> [<ffffffff8108654f>] worker_thread+0x2da/0x46c
> [<ffffffff8108b1ea>] kthread+0xdd/0xec
> [<ffffffff81004894>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>
> -> #1 ((&(&bond->mii_work)->work)){+.+...}:
> [<ffffffff810a6bc1>] validate_chain+0x1019/0x1540
> [<ffffffff810a7e75>] __lock_acquire+0xd8d/0xe55
> [<ffffffff810aa3a4>] lock_acquire+0x160/0x1af
> [<ffffffff81086542>] worker_thread+0x2cd/0x46c
> [<ffffffff8108b1ea>] kthread+0xdd/0xec
> [<ffffffff81004894>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10

These two are form a workqueue worker thread and I don't quite
understand why they are here.

> -> #0 ((bond_dev->name)){+.+...}:
> [<ffffffff810a6696>] validate_chain+0xaee/0x1540
> [<ffffffff810a7e75>] __lock_acquire+0xd8d/0xe55
> [<ffffffff810aa3a4>] lock_acquire+0x160/0x1af
> [<ffffffff81085278>] cleanup_workqueue_thread+0x59/0x10b
> [<ffffffff81085428>] destroy_workqueue+0x9c/0x107
> [<ffffffffa0839d32>] bond_uninit+0x524/0x58a [bonding]
> [<ffffffff8146967b>] rollback_registered_many+0x205/0x2e3
> [<ffffffff81469783>] unregister_netdevice_many+0x2a/0x75
> [<ffffffff8147ada3>] __rtnl_kill_links+0x8b/0x9d
> [<ffffffff8147adea>] __rtnl_link_unregister+0x35/0x72
> [<ffffffff8147b293>] rtnl_link_unregister+0x2c/0x43
> [<ffffffffa0845ca6>] bonding_exit+0x5a/0x76 [bonding]
> [<ffffffff810b7749>] sys_delete_module+0x306/0x3b1
> [<ffffffff81003a5b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

This seems to be from the original thread of frame#3. It's grabbing
wq lock here but the problem is that the lock will be released
immediately, so bond_dev->name (the wq) can't be held by the time it
reaches frame#3. How is this dependency chain completed? Is it
somehow transitive through rtnl_mutex?

> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> 2 locks held by modprobe/5264:
> #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8147af16>] rtnl_lock+0x1e/0x27
> #1: (cpu_add_remove_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810631d1>] cpu_maps_update_begin+0x1e/0x27

Isn't there a circular dependency here? bonding_exit() calls
destroy_workqueue() under rtnl_mutex but destroy_workqueue() should
flush works which could be trying to grab rtnl_lock. Or am I
completely misunderstanding locking here?

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-01 05:59    [W:0.097 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site