lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/3] lockdep: Make LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE configs all part of PROVE_LOCKING
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:31:18AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > IIUC, that's a problem because XFS does this all over the place.
> > > Let me pull the trace apart in reverse order to explain why XFS is
> > > going to throw endless false positives on this:
> >
> > Yeah, and I agree that's not right or desired. Just trying to figure out
> > how to go about fixing that.
> >
> > Because, with possible exception for the single threaded workqueues,
> > there is no actual deadlock there unless its the very same work
> > instance. Its the classic instance vs class thing.
>
> Currently, we do the following in process_one_work(),
>
> lockdep_map_acquire for a workqueue
> lockdep_map_acquire for a work
>
> But IMHO it should be,
>
> lockdep_map_acquire for a pair of workqueue and work.

IMHO, we should remove workqueue's lockdep_map or work's one, and make
the remaining consider the other, so that it works as if
lockdep_map_acquire was used with a pair of workqueue and work, if it's
needed.

> Right?
>
> > And splitting up work classes is going to be a nightmare too.
> >
> > > > [ 39.159708] -> #0 ((&ioend->io_work)){+.+.}:
> > > > [ 39.166126] process_one_work+0x244/0x6b0
> > > > [ 39.171184] worker_thread+0x48/0x3f0
> > > > [ 39.175845] kthread+0x147/0x180
> > > > [ 39.180020] ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x40
> > > > [ 39.184593] 0xffffffffffffffff
> > >
> > > That's a data IO completion, which will take an inode lock if we
> > > have to run a transaction to update inode size or convert an
> > > unwritten extent.
> > >
> > > > [ 39.100611] -> #1 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}:
> > > > [ 39.107612] __lock_acquire+0x10a1/0x1100
> > > > [ 39.112660] lock_acquire+0xea/0x1f0
> > > > [ 39.117224] down_write_nested+0x26/0x60
> > > > [ 39.122184] xfs_ilock+0x166/0x220
> > > > [ 39.126563] __xfs_setfilesize+0x30/0x200
> > > > [ 39.131612] xfs_setfilesize_ioend+0x7f/0xb0
> > > > [ 39.136958] xfs_end_io+0x49/0xf0
> > > > [ 39.141240] process_one_work+0x273/0x6b0
> > > > [ 39.146288] worker_thread+0x48/0x3f0
> > > > [ 39.150960] kthread+0x147/0x180
> > > > [ 39.155146] ret_from_fork+0x2a/0x40
> > >
> > > That's the data IO completion locking the inode inside a transaction
> > > to update the inode size inside a workqueue.
> > >
> > >
> > > > [ 38.962397] -> #2 ((complete)&bp->b_iowait){+.+.}:
> > > > [ 38.969401] __lock_acquire+0x10a1/0x1100
> > > > [ 38.974460] lock_acquire+0xea/0x1f0
> > > > [ 38.979036] wait_for_completion+0x3b/0x130
> > > > [ 38.984285] xfs_buf_submit_wait+0xb2/0x590
> > > > [ 38.989535] _xfs_buf_read+0x23/0x30
> > > > [ 38.994108] xfs_buf_read_map+0x14f/0x320
> > > > [ 38.999169] xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x170/0x5d0
> > > > [ 39.004812] xfs_read_agf+0x97/0x1d0
> > > > [ 39.009386] xfs_alloc_read_agf+0x60/0x240
> > > > [ 39.014541] xfs_alloc_fix_freelist+0x32a/0x3d0
> > > > [ 39.020180] xfs_free_extent_fix_freelist+0x6b/0xa0
> > > > [ 39.026206] xfs_free_extent+0x48/0x120
> > > > [ 39.031068] xfs_trans_free_extent+0x57/0x200
> > > > [ 39.036512] xfs_extent_free_finish_item+0x26/0x40
> > > > [ 39.042442] xfs_defer_finish+0x174/0x770
> > > > [ 39.047494] xfs_itruncate_extents+0x126/0x470
> > > > [ 39.053035] xfs_setattr_size+0x2a1/0x310
> > > > [ 39.058093] xfs_vn_setattr_size+0x57/0x160
> > > > [ 39.063342] xfs_vn_setattr+0x50/0x70
> > > > [ 39.068015] notify_change+0x2ee/0x420
> > > > [ 39.072785] do_truncate+0x5d/0x90
> > > > [ 39.077165] path_openat+0xab2/0xc00
> > > > [ 39.081737] do_filp_open+0x8a/0xf0
> > > > [ 39.086213] do_sys_open+0x123/0x200
> > > > [ 39.090787] SyS_open+0x1e/0x20
> > > > [ 39.094876] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc2
> > >
> > > And that's waiting for a metadata read IO to complete during a
> > > truncate transaction. This has no direct connection to the inode at
> > > all - it's a allocation group header that we have to lock to do
> > > block allocation. The completion it is waiting on doesn't even run
> > > through the same workqueue as the ioends - ioends go through
> > > mp->m_data_workqueue or mp->m_unwritten_workqueue, metadata buffers
> > > go through mp->m_buf_workqueue or mp->m_log_workqueue.
> > >
> > > So from that perspective, an ioend blocked on an inode lock should
> > > not ever prevent metadata buffer completions from being run. Hence
> > > I'd call this a false positive at best, though I think it really
> > > indicates a bug in the new lockdep code because it isn't
> > > discriminating between different workqueue contexts properly.
> >
> > Agreed. The interaction with workqueues is buggered.
>
> I think original uses of lockdep_map were already wrong. I mean it's

I meant 'uses in workqueue'.

> not a problem of newly introduced code.
>
> > > Even if I ignore the fact that buffer completions are run on
> > > different workqueues, there seems to be a bigger problem with this
> > > sort of completion checking.
> > >
> > > That is, the trace looks plausible because we are definitely hold an
> > > inode locked deep inside a truncate operation where the completion
> > > if flagged. Indeed, some transactions that would flag like this
> > > could be holding up to 5 inodes locked and have tens of other
> > > metadata objects locked. There are potentially tens (maybe even
> > > hundreds) of different paths into this IO wait point, and all have
> > > different combinations of objects locked when it triggers. So
> > > there's massive scope for potential deadlocks....
> > >
> > > .... and so we must have some way of avoiding this whole class of
> > > problems that lockdep is unaware of.
> >
> >
> > So I did the below little hack, which basically wipes the entire lock
> > history when we start a work and thereby disregards/looses the
> > dependency on the work 'lock'.
>
> We should not do the following. Why should we give up valuable
> dependencies?
>
> >
> > It makes my test box able to boot and build a kernel on XFS, so while I
> > see what you're saying (I think), it doesn't appear to instantly show.
> >
> > Should I run xfstests or something to further verify things are OK? Does
> > that need a scratch partition (I keep forgetting how to run that stuff
> > :/).
> >
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index 66011c9f5df3..de91cdce9460 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -4756,10 +4756,14 @@ void crossrelease_hist_start(enum xhlock_context_t c)
> > {
> > struct task_struct *cur = current;
> >
> > - if (cur->xhlocks) {
> > - cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c] = cur->xhlock_idx;
> > - cur->hist_id_save[c] = cur->hist_id;
> > - }
> > + if (!cur->xhlocks)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (c == XHLOCK_PROC)
> > + invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx));
> > +
> > + cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c] = cur->xhlock_idx;
> > + cur->hist_id_save[c] = cur->hist_id;
> > }
> >
> > void crossrelease_hist_end(enum xhlock_context_t c)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-23 08:12    [W:0.108 / U:6.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site