From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()")
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:34:32 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <506BB950.3000102@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121003034405.GB13192@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On 10/03/2012 09:14 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 09:05:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 10/03/2012 03:47 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see how this circular locking dependency can occur.. If you are using SLUB,
>>>> kmem_cache_destroy() releases slab_mutex before it calls rcu_barrier(). If you are
>>>> using SLAB, kmem_cache_destroy() wraps its whole operation inside get/put_online_cpus(),
>>>> which means, it cannot run concurrently with a hotplug operation such as cpu_up(). So, I'm
>>>> rather puzzled at this lockdep splat..
>>>
>>> I am using SLAB here.
>>>
>>> The scenario I think is very well possible:
>>>
>>>
>>> CPU 0 CPU 1
>>> kmem_cache_destroy()
>>
>> What about the get_online_cpus() right here at CPU0 before
>> calling mutex_lock(slab_mutex)? How can the cpu_up() proceed
>> on CPU1?? I still don't get it... :(
>>
>> (kmem_cache_destroy() uses get/put_online_cpus() around acquiring
>> and releasing slab_mutex).
>
> The problem is that there is a CPU-hotplug notifier for slab, which
> establishes hotplug->slab.
Agreed.
> Then having kmem_cache_destroy() call
> rcu_barrier() under the lock
Ah, that's where I disagree. kmem_cache_destroy() *cannot* proceed at
this point in time, because it has invoked get_online_cpus()! It simply
cannot be running past that point in the presence of a running hotplug
notifier! So, kmem_cache_destroy() should have been sleeping on the
hotplug lock, waiting for the notifier to release it, no?
> establishes slab->hotplug, which results
> in deadlock. Jiri really did explain this in an earlier email
> message, but both of us managed to miss it. ;-)
>
Maybe I'm just being blind, sorry! ;-)
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> Thanx, Paul
>
>> Regards,
>> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
>>> mutex_lock(slab_mutex)
>>> _cpu_up()
>>> cpu_hotplug_begin()
>>> mutex_lock(cpu_hotplug.lock)
>>> rcu_barrier()
>>> _rcu_barrier()
>>> get_online_cpus()
>>> mutex_lock(cpu_hotplug.lock)
>>> (blocks, CPU 1 has the mutex)
>>> __cpu_notify()
>>> mutex_lock(slab_mutex)
>>>
>>> Deadlock.
>>>
>>> Right?
>>>
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-03 4:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-02 16:14 Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()") Jiri Kosina
2012-10-02 17:01 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-02 21:27 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-02 21:49 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-02 21:58 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-02 23:31 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-02 23:48 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 0:15 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 0:45 ` [PATCH] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy() (was Re: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()")) Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 0:45 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 3:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 3:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 3:50 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 3:50 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 6:08 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 6:08 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 8:21 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 8:21 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 9:46 ` [PATCH v2] [RFC] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy() Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 9:46 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 12:22 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 12:22 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 12:53 ` [PATCH] CPU hotplug, debug: Detect imbalance between get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus() Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 12:53 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2012-10-03 21:13 ` Andrew Morton
2012-10-04 6:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-04 6:16 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-05 3:24 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-10-05 3:24 ` Yasuaki Ishimatsu
2012-10-05 5:35 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-05 5:35 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 14:50 ` [PATCH v2] [RFC] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy() Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 14:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 14:55 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 14:55 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 16:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 16:00 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 14:17 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-03 14:17 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-03 14:15 ` [PATCH] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy() (was Re: Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()")) Christoph Lameter
2012-10-03 14:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-10-03 14:34 ` [PATCH v3] mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy() Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 14:34 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 15:00 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 15:00 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 15:05 ` [PATCH v4] " Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 15:05 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 15:49 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 15:49 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 18:49 ` David Rientjes
2012-10-03 18:49 ` David Rientjes
2012-10-08 7:26 ` [PATCH] [RESEND] " Jiri Kosina
2012-10-08 7:26 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-10 6:27 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-10 6:27 ` Pekka Enberg
2012-10-03 3:59 ` Lockdep complains about commit 1331e7a1bb ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()") Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 4:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 4:15 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-02 20:39 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-02 22:17 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 3:35 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 3:44 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-10-03 4:04 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
2012-10-03 7:43 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 8:11 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 8:19 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 8:30 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2012-10-03 9:24 ` Jiri Kosina
2012-10-03 9:58 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
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=506BB950.3000102@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.mckenney@linaro.org \
--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.