From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg rcu lock fix in swap code (Was Re: [BUG] an RCU warning in memcg
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:55:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BD11A24.2070500@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BD118E2.7080307@cn.fujitsu.com>
Li Zefan wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:00:41 +0800
>> Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, I saw this warning, it's because
>>> css_id() is not under rcu_read_lock().
>>>
>> Ok. Thank you for reporting.
>> This is ok ?
>
> Yes, and I did some more simple tests on memcg, no more warning
> showed up.
>
oops, after trigging oom, I saw 2 more warnings:
===================================================
[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
---------------------------------------------------
kernel/cgroup.c:4459 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
other info that might help us debug this:
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
2 locks held by firefox/2258:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<c0843090>] do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
#1: (tasklist_lock){.?.?.-}, at: [<c04df1ac>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x2c/0x90
stack backtrace:
Pid: 2258, comm: firefox Not tainted 2.6.34-rc5-tip+ #14
Call Trace:
[<c083c636>] ? printk+0x1d/0x1f
[<c0480744>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x94/0xb0
[<c049d61e>] css_is_ancestor+0xce/0xe0
[<c0517c41>] task_in_mem_cgroup+0xd1/0xf0
[<c0517b70>] ? task_in_mem_cgroup+0x0/0xf0
[<c04def10>] select_bad_process+0x70/0xe0
[<c04df1c1>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x41/0x90
[<c04826db>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
[<c05159e3>] mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0xf3/0x130
[<c046bae0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50
[<c0516e01>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x391/0x3d0
[<c047eadb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
[<c05174c0>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x40/0x70
[<c0517620>] mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0x130/0x150
[<c04db6e7>] add_to_page_cache_locked+0x37/0x130
[<c04e5719>] ? __lru_cache_add+0x69/0xb0
[<c04db811>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0x31/0x80
[<c0549084>] mpage_readpages+0x84/0xf0
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c057c760>] ? ext3_readpages+0x0/0x20
[<c057c77e>] ext3_readpages+0x1e/0x20
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c04e4889>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x219/0x2b0
[<c04e4748>] ? __do_page_cache_readahead+0xd8/0x2b0
[<c04e4946>] ra_submit+0x26/0x30
[<c04dcf86>] filemap_fault+0x436/0x470
[<c04f6a95>] __do_fault+0x55/0x550
[<c04f7afb>] handle_mm_fault+0x17b/0xad0
[<c0843090>] ? do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0843109>] do_page_fault+0x179/0x500
[<c04532b1>] ? __do_softirq+0x111/0x260
[<c045344f>] ? do_softirq+0x4f/0x70
[<c047ea65>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0xc5/0x130
[<c0840b0f>] ? error_code+0x67/0x70
[<c047ea14>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x74/0x130
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0840b13>] error_code+0x6b/0x70
[<c0840000>] ? _raw_read_trylock+0x40/0x90
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
===================================================
[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
---------------------------------------------------
kernel/cgroup.c:4460 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
other info that might help us debug this:
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
2 locks held by firefox/2258:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<c0843090>] do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
#1: (tasklist_lock){.?.?.-}, at: [<c04df1ac>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x2c/0x90
stack backtrace:
Pid: 2258, comm: firefox Not tainted 2.6.34-rc5-tip+ #14
Call Trace:
[<c083c636>] ? printk+0x1d/0x1f
[<c0480744>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x94/0xb0
[<c049d5e6>] css_is_ancestor+0x96/0xe0
[<c0517c41>] task_in_mem_cgroup+0xd1/0xf0
[<c0517b70>] ? task_in_mem_cgroup+0x0/0xf0
[<c04def10>] select_bad_process+0x70/0xe0
[<c04df1c1>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x41/0x90
[<c04826db>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
[<c05159e3>] mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0xf3/0x130
[<c046bae0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50
[<c0516e01>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x391/0x3d0
[<c047eadb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
[<c05174c0>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x40/0x70
[<c0517620>] mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0x130/0x150
[<c04db6e7>] add_to_page_cache_locked+0x37/0x130
[<c04e5719>] ? __lru_cache_add+0x69/0xb0
[<c04db811>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0x31/0x80
[<c0549084>] mpage_readpages+0x84/0xf0
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c057c760>] ? ext3_readpages+0x0/0x20
[<c057c77e>] ext3_readpages+0x1e/0x20
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c04e4889>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x219/0x2b0
[<c04e4748>] ? __do_page_cache_readahead+0xd8/0x2b0
[<c04e4946>] ra_submit+0x26/0x30
[<c04dcf86>] filemap_fault+0x436/0x470
[<c04f6a95>] __do_fault+0x55/0x550
[<c04f7afb>] handle_mm_fault+0x17b/0xad0
[<c0843090>] ? do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0843109>] do_page_fault+0x179/0x500
[<c04532b1>] ? __do_softirq+0x111/0x260
[<c045344f>] ? do_softirq+0x4f/0x70
[<c047ea65>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0xc5/0x130
[<c0840b0f>] ? error_code+0x67/0x70
[<c047ea14>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x74/0x130
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0840b13>] error_code+0x6b/0x70
[<c0840000>] ? _raw_read_trylock+0x40/0x90
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg rcu lock fix in swap code (Was Re: [BUG] an RCU warning in memcg
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:55:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BD11A24.2070500@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BD118E2.7080307@cn.fujitsu.com>
Li Zefan wrote:
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:00:41 +0800
>> Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y, I saw this warning, it's because
>>> css_id() is not under rcu_read_lock().
>>>
>> Ok. Thank you for reporting.
>> This is ok ?
>
> Yes, and I did some more simple tests on memcg, no more warning
> showed up.
>
oops, after trigging oom, I saw 2 more warnings:
===================================================
[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
---------------------------------------------------
kernel/cgroup.c:4459 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
other info that might help us debug this:
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
2 locks held by firefox/2258:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<c0843090>] do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
#1: (tasklist_lock){.?.?.-}, at: [<c04df1ac>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x2c/0x90
stack backtrace:
Pid: 2258, comm: firefox Not tainted 2.6.34-rc5-tip+ #14
Call Trace:
[<c083c636>] ? printk+0x1d/0x1f
[<c0480744>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x94/0xb0
[<c049d61e>] css_is_ancestor+0xce/0xe0
[<c0517c41>] task_in_mem_cgroup+0xd1/0xf0
[<c0517b70>] ? task_in_mem_cgroup+0x0/0xf0
[<c04def10>] select_bad_process+0x70/0xe0
[<c04df1c1>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x41/0x90
[<c04826db>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
[<c05159e3>] mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0xf3/0x130
[<c046bae0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50
[<c0516e01>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x391/0x3d0
[<c047eadb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
[<c05174c0>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x40/0x70
[<c0517620>] mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0x130/0x150
[<c04db6e7>] add_to_page_cache_locked+0x37/0x130
[<c04e5719>] ? __lru_cache_add+0x69/0xb0
[<c04db811>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0x31/0x80
[<c0549084>] mpage_readpages+0x84/0xf0
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c057c760>] ? ext3_readpages+0x0/0x20
[<c057c77e>] ext3_readpages+0x1e/0x20
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c04e4889>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x219/0x2b0
[<c04e4748>] ? __do_page_cache_readahead+0xd8/0x2b0
[<c04e4946>] ra_submit+0x26/0x30
[<c04dcf86>] filemap_fault+0x436/0x470
[<c04f6a95>] __do_fault+0x55/0x550
[<c04f7afb>] handle_mm_fault+0x17b/0xad0
[<c0843090>] ? do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0843109>] do_page_fault+0x179/0x500
[<c04532b1>] ? __do_softirq+0x111/0x260
[<c045344f>] ? do_softirq+0x4f/0x70
[<c047ea65>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0xc5/0x130
[<c0840b0f>] ? error_code+0x67/0x70
[<c047ea14>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x74/0x130
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0840b13>] error_code+0x6b/0x70
[<c0840000>] ? _raw_read_trylock+0x40/0x90
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
===================================================
[ INFO: suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage. ]
---------------------------------------------------
kernel/cgroup.c:4460 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
other info that might help us debug this:
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
2 locks held by firefox/2258:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<c0843090>] do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
#1: (tasklist_lock){.?.?.-}, at: [<c04df1ac>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x2c/0x90
stack backtrace:
Pid: 2258, comm: firefox Not tainted 2.6.34-rc5-tip+ #14
Call Trace:
[<c083c636>] ? printk+0x1d/0x1f
[<c0480744>] lockdep_rcu_dereference+0x94/0xb0
[<c049d5e6>] css_is_ancestor+0x96/0xe0
[<c0517c41>] task_in_mem_cgroup+0xd1/0xf0
[<c0517b70>] ? task_in_mem_cgroup+0x0/0xf0
[<c04def10>] select_bad_process+0x70/0xe0
[<c04df1c1>] mem_cgroup_out_of_memory+0x41/0x90
[<c04826db>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
[<c05159e3>] mem_cgroup_handle_oom+0xf3/0x130
[<c046bae0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50
[<c0516e01>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x391/0x3d0
[<c047eadb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
[<c05174c0>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x40/0x70
[<c0517620>] mem_cgroup_cache_charge+0x130/0x150
[<c04db6e7>] add_to_page_cache_locked+0x37/0x130
[<c04e5719>] ? __lru_cache_add+0x69/0xb0
[<c04db811>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0x31/0x80
[<c0549084>] mpage_readpages+0x84/0xf0
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c057c760>] ? ext3_readpages+0x0/0x20
[<c057c77e>] ext3_readpages+0x1e/0x20
[<c057e4d0>] ? ext3_get_block+0x0/0x110
[<c04e4889>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x219/0x2b0
[<c04e4748>] ? __do_page_cache_readahead+0xd8/0x2b0
[<c04e4946>] ra_submit+0x26/0x30
[<c04dcf86>] filemap_fault+0x436/0x470
[<c04f6a95>] __do_fault+0x55/0x550
[<c04f7afb>] handle_mm_fault+0x17b/0xad0
[<c0843090>] ? do_page_fault+0x100/0x500
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0843109>] do_page_fault+0x179/0x500
[<c04532b1>] ? __do_softirq+0x111/0x260
[<c045344f>] ? do_softirq+0x4f/0x70
[<c047ea65>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0xc5/0x130
[<c0840b0f>] ? error_code+0x67/0x70
[<c047ea14>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x74/0x130
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
[<c0840b13>] error_code+0x6b/0x70
[<c0840000>] ? _raw_read_trylock+0x40/0x90
[<c0842f90>] ? do_page_fault+0x0/0x500
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-23 3:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-23 3:00 [BUG] an RCU warning in memcg Li Zefan
2010-04-23 3:00 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 3:14 ` [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg rcu lock fix in swap code (Was " KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 3:14 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 3:32 ` Balbir Singh
2010-04-23 3:32 ` Balbir Singh
2010-04-23 3:49 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 3:49 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 3:55 ` Li Zefan [this message]
2010-04-23 3:55 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 3:50 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 3:50 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 4:02 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 4:02 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 3:58 ` [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg rcu lock fix v2 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 3:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 4:03 ` [BUGFIX][PATCH] memcg rcu lock fix v3 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 4:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 4:41 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-04-23 4:41 ` Daisuke Nishimura
2010-04-23 6:10 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 6:10 ` Li Zefan
2010-04-23 6:05 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 6:05 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 7:00 ` Balbir Singh
2010-04-23 7:00 ` Balbir Singh
2010-04-23 6:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 6:57 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-23 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-23 19:34 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-24 2:08 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-24 2:08 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-04-24 4:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
2010-04-24 4:27 ` Paul E. McKenney
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=4BD11A24.2070500@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp \
--cc=paulmck@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.