lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH PREEMPT RT] rt-mutex: fix deadlock in device mapper


On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 15:57 +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> > On 2017-11-13 12:56:53 [-0500], Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > Hi
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I'm submitting this patch for the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT patch. It fixes
> > > deadlocks in device mapper when real time preemption is used.
> >
> > applied, thank you.
>
> Below is my 2012 3.0-rt version of that for reference; at that time we
> were using slab, and slab_lock referenced below was a local_lock.  The
> comment came from crash analysis of a deadlock I met before adding the
> (yeah, hacky) __migrate_disabled() blocker.  At the time, that was not
> an optional hack, you WOULD deadlock if you ground disks to fine powder
> the way SUSE QA did.  Pulling the plug before blocking cured the
> xfs/ext[34] IO deadlocks they griped about, but I had to add that hack
> to not trade their nasty IO deadlocks for the more mundane variety.  So
> my question is: are we sure that in the here and now flush won't want
> any lock we may be holding?  In days of yore, it most definitely would
> turn your box into a doorstop if you tried hard enough.

I think that you shouldn't call blk_schedule_flush_plug when attempting to
take a rt-spinlock at all.

Rt-mutex can't depend on rt-spinlock (altough they use the same internal
implementation), so a task waiting on rt-spinlock can't block any other
task attempting to take rt-mutex from making progress.

Is there some specific scenario where you need to call
blk_schedule_flush_plug from rt_spin_lock_fastlock?

Mikulas

> Subject: rt: pull your plug before blocking
> Date: Wed Jul 18 14:43:15 CEST 2012
> From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
>
> Queued IO can lead to IO deadlock should a task require wakeup from a task
> which is blocked on that queued IO.
>
> ext3: dbench1 queues a buffer, blocks on journal mutex, it's plug is not
> pulled. dbench2 mutex owner is waiting for kjournald, who is waiting for
> the buffer queued by dbench1. Game over.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> ---
> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/deadline.h>
> #include <linux/timer.h>
> #include <linux/ww_mutex.h>
> +#include <linux/blkdev.h>
>
> #include "rtmutex_common.h"
>
> @@ -930,8 +931,18 @@ static inline void rt_spin_lock_fastlock
>
> if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(lock, NULL, current)))
> rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, current);
> - else
> + else {
> + /*
> + * We can't pull the plug if we're already holding a lock
> + * else we can deadlock. eg, if we're holding slab_lock,
> + * ksoftirqd can block while processing BLOCK_SOFTIRQ after
> + * having acquired q->queue_lock. If _we_ then block on
> + * that q->queue_lock while flushing our plug, deadlock.
> + */
> + if (__migrate_disabled(current) < 2 && blk_needs_flush_plug(current))
> + blk_schedule_flush_plug(current);
> slowfn(lock);
> + }
> }
>
> static inline void rt_spin_lock_fastunlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
> @@ -1892,9 +1903,12 @@ rt_mutex_fastlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
> if (likely(rt_mutex_cmpxchg_acquire(lock, NULL, current))) {
> rt_mutex_deadlock_account_lock(lock, current);
> return 0;
> - } else
> + } else {
> + if (blk_needs_flush_plug(current))
> + blk_schedule_flush_plug(current);
> return slowfn(lock, state, NULL, RT_MUTEX_MIN_CHAINWALK,
> ww_ctx);
> + }
> }
>
> static inline int
>
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-20 22:34    [W:0.088 / U:2.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site