lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22]
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > fsck.ext4/148 is trying to acquire lock:
> > (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8116e73e>] __blkdev_put+0x33/0x190
> >
> > but now in release context of a crosslock acquired at the following:
> > ((complete)&wait#2){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff812159e0>] blk_execute_rq+0xbb/0xda
> >
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >
> > -> #1 ((complete)&wait#2){+.+.}:
> > lock_acquire+0x176/0x19e
> > __wait_for_common+0x50/0x1e3
> > blk_execute_rq+0xbb/0xda
> > scsi_execute+0xc3/0x17d [scsi_mod]
> > sd_revalidate_disk+0x112/0x1549 [sd_mod]
> > rescan_partitions+0x48/0x2c4
> > __blkdev_get+0x14b/0x37c
> > blkdev_get+0x191/0x2c0
> > device_add_disk+0x2b4/0x3e5
> > sd_probe_async+0xf8/0x17e [sd_mod]
> > async_run_entry_fn+0x34/0xe0
> > process_one_work+0x2af/0x4d1
> > worker_thread+0x19a/0x24f
> > kthread+0x133/0x13b
> > ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> >
> > -> #0 (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.}:
> > __blkdev_put+0x33/0x190
> > blkdev_close+0x24/0x27
> > __fput+0xee/0x18a
> > task_work_run+0x79/0xa0
> > prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x9b/0xb5
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > Possible unsafe locking scenario by crosslock:
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > ---- ----
> > lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> > lock((complete)&wait#2);
> > lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
> > unlock((complete)&wait#2);
> >
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
> > 4 locks held by fsck.ext4/148:
> > #0: (&bdev->bd_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8116e73e>] __blkdev_put+0x33/0x190
> > #1: (rcu_read_lock){....}, at: [<ffffffff81217f16>] rcu_lock_acquire+0x0/0x20
> > #2: (&(&host->lock)->rlock){-.-.}, at: [<ffffffffa00e7550>] ata_scsi_queuecmd+0x23/0x74 [libata]
> > #3: (&x->wait#14){-...}, at: [<ffffffff8106b593>] complete+0x18/0x50
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > CPU: 1 PID: 148 Comm: fsck.ext4 Not tainted 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746
> > Call Trace:
> > dump_stack+0x67/0x8e
> > print_circular_bug+0x2a1/0x2af
> > ? zap_class+0xc5/0xc5
> > check_prev_add+0x76/0x20d
> > ? __lock_acquire+0xc27/0xcc8
> > lock_commit_crosslock+0x327/0x35e
> > complete+0x24/0x50
> > scsi_end_request+0x8d/0x176 [scsi_mod]
> > scsi_io_completion+0x1be/0x423 [scsi_mod]
> > __blk_mq_complete_request+0x112/0x131
> > ata_scsi_simulate+0x212/0x218 [libata]
> > __ata_scsi_queuecmd+0x1be/0x1de [libata]
> > ata_scsi_queuecmd+0x41/0x74 [libata]
> > scsi_dispatch_cmd+0x194/0x2af [scsi_mod]
> > scsi_queue_rq+0x1e0/0x26f [scsi_mod]
> > blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x193/0x2a7
> > ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2e/0x40
> > blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x132/0x176
> > __blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x59/0xc5
> > __blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue+0x5f/0xc1
> > blk_mq_flush_plug_list+0xfc/0x10b
> > blk_flush_plug_list+0xc6/0x1eb
> > blk_finish_plug+0x25/0x32
> > generic_writepages+0x56/0x63
> > do_writepages+0x36/0x70
> > __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0x59/0x5f
> > filemap_write_and_wait+0x19/0x4f
> > __blkdev_put+0x5f/0x190
> > blkdev_close+0x24/0x27
> > __fput+0xee/0x18a
> > task_work_run+0x79/0xa0
> > prepare_exit_to_usermode+0x9b/0xb5
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0xab/0xad
>
> Byungchul, did you add the crosslock checks to lockdep? Can you have a look at
> the above report? That report namely doesn't make sense to me.

The report is talking about the following lockup:

A work in a worker A task work on exit to user
------------------ ---------------------------
mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex)
mutext_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex)
blk_execute_rq()
wait_for_completion_io_timeout(&A)
complete(&A)

Is this impossible?

To Peterz,

Anyway I wanted to avoid lockdep reports in the case using a timeout
interface. Do you think it's still worth reporting the kind of lockup?
I'm ok if you do.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-23 02:04    [W:0.137 / U:0.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site