All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, davej@redhat.com, jboyer@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:40:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120308134050.f53a0b2f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120308211926.GB6546@boyd>

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:19:27 -0600
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> wrote:

> > 
> > 
> > Sigh.  Was lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key() sufficiently
> > self-explanatory to justify leaving it undocumented?
> > 
> > <goes off and reads e096d0c7e2e>
> > 
> > OK, the patch looks correct given the explanation in e096d0c7e2e, but
> > I'd like to understand why it becomes necessary only now.
> > 
> > > NOTE: This patch also require 
> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/58795/focus=59565
> > > to remove the lockdep warning
> > 
> > And that patch has been basically ignored.
> 
> Al commented on it here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/518
> 
> He said that while my patch is correct, taking i_mutex inside mmap_sem
> is still wrong.

OK, thanks, yup.  Taking i_mutex in file_operations.mmap() is wrong.

Is hugetlbfs actually deadlockable because of this, or is it the case
that the i_mutex->mmap_sem ordering happens to never happen for this
filesystem?  Although we shouldn't go and create incompatible lock
ranking rules for different filesystems!

So we need to pull the i_mutex out of hugetlbfs_file_mmap().  What's it
actually trying to do in there?  If we switch to
i_size_read()/i_size_write() then AFAICT the problem comes down to
hugetlb_reserve_pages().

hugetlb_reserve_pages() fiddles with i_mapping->private_list and the fs
owns private_list and is free to use a lock other than i_mutex to
protect it.  (In fact i_mapping.private_lock is the usual lock for
private_list).



So from a quick scan here I'm thinking that a decent fix is to remove
the i_mutex locking from hugetlbfs_file_mmap(), switch
hugetlbfs_file_mmap() to i_size_read/write then use a hugetlb-private
lock to protect i_mapping->private_list.  region_chg() will do
GFP_KERNEL allocations under that lock, so some care is needed.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, davej@redhat.com, jboyer@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:40:50 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120308134050.f53a0b2f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120308211926.GB6546@boyd>

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:19:27 -0600
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> wrote:

> > 
> > 
> > Sigh.  Was lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key() sufficiently
> > self-explanatory to justify leaving it undocumented?
> > 
> > <goes off and reads e096d0c7e2e>
> > 
> > OK, the patch looks correct given the explanation in e096d0c7e2e, but
> > I'd like to understand why it becomes necessary only now.
> > 
> > > NOTE: This patch also require 
> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/58795/focus=59565
> > > to remove the lockdep warning
> > 
> > And that patch has been basically ignored.
> 
> Al commented on it here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/518
> 
> He said that while my patch is correct, taking i_mutex inside mmap_sem
> is still wrong.

OK, thanks, yup.  Taking i_mutex in file_operations.mmap() is wrong.

Is hugetlbfs actually deadlockable because of this, or is it the case
that the i_mutex->mmap_sem ordering happens to never happen for this
filesystem?  Although we shouldn't go and create incompatible lock
ranking rules for different filesystems!

So we need to pull the i_mutex out of hugetlbfs_file_mmap().  What's it
actually trying to do in there?  If we switch to
i_size_read()/i_size_write() then AFAICT the problem comes down to
hugetlb_reserve_pages().

hugetlb_reserve_pages() fiddles with i_mapping->private_list and the fs
owns private_list and is free to use a lock other than i_mutex to
protect it.  (In fact i_mapping.private_lock is the usual lock for
private_list).



So from a quick scan here I'm thinking that a decent fix is to remove
the i_mutex locking from hugetlbfs_file_mmap(), switch
hugetlbfs_file_mmap() to i_size_read/write then use a hugetlb-private
lock to protect i_mapping->private_list.  region_chg() will do
GFP_KERNEL allocations under that lock, so some care is needed.


  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-08 21:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-03-08  9:15 [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly Aneesh Kumar K.V
2012-03-08  9:15 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2012-03-08 21:02 ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-08 21:02   ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-08 21:10   ` Dave Jones
2012-03-08 21:10     ` Dave Jones
2012-03-08 21:19   ` Tyler Hicks
2012-03-08 21:40     ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2012-03-08 21:40       ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-08 21:49       ` Al Viro
2012-03-08 21:49         ` Al Viro
2012-03-08 22:19         ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-08 22:19           ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-08 22:33           ` Dave Jones
2012-03-08 22:33             ` Dave Jones
2012-03-08 22:45             ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-08 22:45               ` Andrew Morton
2012-03-09  5:00           ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2012-03-09  5:00             ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2012-03-09  5:03       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2012-03-09  5:03         ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2012-03-08 21:44   ` Al Viro
2012-03-08 21:44     ` Al Viro
2012-03-08 22:44     ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-03-08 22:44       ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-03-08 22:46       ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-03-08 22:46         ` Peter Zijlstra
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-04-16 20:28 Aneesh Kumar K.V

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120308134050.f53a0b2f.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --cc=jboyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=tyhicks@canonical.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.