Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:50:21 +0200 | From | Andrea Righi <> | Subject | [PATCH -mm] memrlimit: fix task_lock() recursive locking (v2) |
| |
cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks() can be called with task_lock() held in mm_update_next_owner(), and all the .mm_owner_changed callbacks seem to be *always* called with task_lock() held.
Actually, memrlimit is using task_lock() via get_task_mm() in memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(), raising the following recursive locking trace:
[ 5346.421365] ============================================= [ 5346.421374] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] [ 5346.421381] 2.6.27-rc5-mm1 #20 [ 5346.421385] --------------------------------------------- [ 5346.421391] interbench/10530 is trying to acquire lock: [ 5346.421396] (&p->alloc_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8023b034>] get_task_mm+0x24/0x70 [ 5346.421417] [ 5346.421418] but task is already holding lock: [ 5346.421423] (&p->alloc_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8023db98>] mm_update_next_owner+0x148/0x230 [ 5346.421438] [ 5346.421440] other info that might help us debug this: [ 5346.421446] 2 locks held by interbench/10530: [ 5346.421450] #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<ffffffff8023db90>] mm_update_next_owner+0x140/0x230 [ 5346.421467] #1: (&p->alloc_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8023db98>] mm_update_next_owner+0x148/0x230 [ 5346.421483] [ 5346.421485] stack backtrace: [ 5346.421491] Pid: 10530, comm: interbench Not tainted 2.6.27-rc5-mm1 #20 [ 5346.421496] Call Trace: [ 5346.421507] [<ffffffff80263383>] validate_chain+0xb03/0x10d0 [ 5346.421515] [<ffffffff80263c05>] __lock_acquire+0x2b5/0x9c0 [ 5346.421522] [<ffffffff80262cc2>] validate_chain+0x442/0x10d0 [ 5346.421530] [<ffffffff802643aa>] lock_acquire+0x9a/0xe0 [ 5346.421537] [<ffffffff8023b034>] get_task_mm+0x24/0x70 [ 5346.421546] [<ffffffff804757c7>] _spin_lock+0x37/0x70 [ 5346.421553] [<ffffffff8023b034>] get_task_mm+0x24/0x70 [ 5346.421560] [<ffffffff8023b034>] get_task_mm+0x24/0x70 [ 5346.421569] [<ffffffff802b91f8>] memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed+0x18/0x90 [ 5346.421579] [<ffffffff80278b03>] cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks+0x93/0xc0 [ 5346.421587] [<ffffffff8023dc36>] mm_update_next_owner+0x1e6/0x230 [ 5346.421595] [<ffffffff8023dd72>] exit_mm+0xf2/0x120 [ 5346.421602] [<ffffffff8023f547>] do_exit+0x167/0x930 [ 5346.421610] [<ffffffff8047604a>] _spin_unlock_irq+0x2a/0x50 [ 5346.421618] [<ffffffff8023fd46>] do_group_exit+0x36/0xa0 [ 5346.421626] [<ffffffff8020b7cb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
Since we hold task_lock(), we know that p->mm cannot change and we don't have to worry about incrementing mm_users. So, just use p->mm directly and check that we've not picked a kernel thread.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com> --- kernel/cgroup.c | 3 ++- mm/memrlimitcgroup.c | 10 ++++------ 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c index 678a680..03cc925 100644 --- a/kernel/cgroup.c +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c @@ -2757,7 +2757,8 @@ void cgroup_fork_callbacks(struct task_struct *child) * invoke this routine, since it assigns the mm->owner the first time * and does not change it. * - * The callbacks are invoked with mmap_sem held in read mode. + * The callbacks are invoked with task_lock held and mmap_sem held in read + * mode. */ void cgroup_mm_owner_callbacks(struct task_struct *old, struct task_struct *new) { diff --git a/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c b/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c index 8ee74f6..b3d20f5 100644 --- a/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c +++ b/mm/memrlimitcgroup.c @@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ out: } /* - * This callback is called with mmap_sem held + * This callback is called with mmap_sem and task_lock held */ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cgroup *old_cgrp, @@ -246,9 +246,9 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct task_struct *p) { struct memrlimit_cgroup *memrcg, *old_memrcg; - struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm(p); + struct mm_struct *mm = p->mm; - BUG_ON(!mm); + BUG_ON(!mm || (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)); /* * If we don't have a new cgroup, we just uncharge from the old one. @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, memrcg = memrlimit_cgroup_from_cgrp(cgrp); if (res_counter_charge(&memrcg->as_res, mm->total_vm << PAGE_SHIFT)) - goto out; + return; } if (old_cgrp) { @@ -266,8 +266,6 @@ static void memrlimit_cgroup_mm_owner_changed(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, res_counter_uncharge(&old_memrcg->as_res, mm->total_vm << PAGE_SHIFT); } -out: - mmput(mm); } struct cgroup_subsys memrlimit_cgroup_subsys = { -- 1.5.4.3
| |