lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [LKP] d50d82faa0 [ 33.671845] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected


On Wed, 7 Nov 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:43:36 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:04 +0800 kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > 0day kernel testing robot got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is
> > >
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > >
> > > commit d50d82faa0c964e31f7a946ba8aba7c715ca7ab0
> > > Author: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> > > AuthorDate: Wed Jun 27 23:26:09 2018 -0700
> > > Commit: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > > CommitDate: Thu Jun 28 11:16:44 2018 -0700
> > >
> > > slub: fix failure when we delete and create a slab cache
> >
> > This is ugly. Is there an alternative way of fixing the race which
> > Mikulas attempted to address? Possibly cancel the work and reuse the
> > existing sysfs file, or is that too stupid to live?
> >
> > 3b7b314053d021 ("slub: make sysfs file removal asynchronous") was
> > pretty lame, really. As mentioned,
> >
> > : It'd be the cleanest to deal with the issue by removing sysfs files
> > : without holding slab_mutex before the rest of shutdown; however, given
> > : the current code structure, it is pretty difficult to do so.
> >
> > Would be a preferable approach.
> >
> > >
> > > This uncovered a bug in the slub subsystem - if we delete a cache and
> > > immediatelly create another cache with the same attributes, it fails
> > > because of duplicate filename in /sys/kernel/slab/. The slub subsystem
> > > offloads freeing the cache to a workqueue - and if we create the new
> > > cache before the workqueue runs, it complains because of duplicate
> > > filename in sysfs.
>
> Alternatively, could we flush the workqueue before attempting to
> (re)create the sysfs file?

What if someone creates the slab cache from the workqueue?

> Extra points for only doing this if the
> first (re)creation attempt returned -EEXIST?

If it returns -EEXIST, it has already written the warning to the log.

Mikulas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-12 15:30    [W:0.055 / U:1.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site