From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD0FA1FC3 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:36:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733196975; cv=none; b=PJE1xSPid+Re5jeJGrBl6nDn36vCHw2VLeEjmI36gf7botwHVy++Yx4RlnArF6k4Qvf+hh07LP8VduNc0bYe11yvFMM0fAbQji8+TLFpZPBDRMXnWgix+IPl8sgHf2/GSFueyb0hFdHPLjJb8d/rsF7oHnu11+tcpZzJrux7JaE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1733196975; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SuvRh8cTgeUfkOy/wnjMzHP5FKz/STUzNHwd6uyGmoE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Pmn2rfx54+iZg6ESzJ020ArSVN2WjJW3zRV2v8xmzWp9rAnsI/+e839hP4WeEghKJVtFJppOykCKQJOT/T5C1LLvlzGmRT5LeOhMkZhmSIPRiEpGo6VYFqm74P5V4JeyNbk1WGVObLkGupRqLGQp7VZi8BqsZN0ItZ4cQZ5zwPI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=UylGswjl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="UylGswjl" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1733196971; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OWgn1koTIhFjwdGJMPZtVVEcZuDRaXD/BsEJEEH7EyE=; b=UylGswjlWHtiXHRjI17ZgFJycTLfuwFlztUvWlSFc/aP03uvUcKyBvgSx2D4g8UmayHjPj 4zt3O70KkUJd8yS0BM/8znhUSyUfH5kviZHfQ10TGK1OuOfbflqJnsTfafFMtoyYymMTZ2 CYCS/6YT2XKWtkj/Kw2lTfq+j2k9m/4= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-661-L7PnmFm1OSaxh2aoamRGMA-1; Mon, 02 Dec 2024 22:36:08 -0500 X-MC-Unique: L7PnmFm1OSaxh2aoamRGMA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: L7PnmFm1OSaxh2aoamRGMA Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 212991955E80; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.112.177]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88AEE30001A0; Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 11:35:57 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: Reinette Chatre , Fenghua Yu , Peter Newman , Babu Moger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: resctrl mount fail on v6.13-rc1 Message-ID: References: <868b451a-fdba-4b45-bff1-9ac1023080c8@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 06:47:38PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 02:26:48PM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > Hi Tony, > > > > On 12/2/24 1:42 PM, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > Anyone better a decoding lockdep dumps then me make sense of this? > > > > > > All I did was build v6.13-rc1 with (among others) > > > > > > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y > > > CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING=y > > > CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y > > > > > > and then mount the resctrl filesystem: > > > > > > $ sudo mount -t resctrl resctrl /sys/fs/resctrl [linux]# make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS=resctrl run_tests make: Entering directory '/root/git/linux/tools/testing/selftests' make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'all'. TAP version 13 1..1 # timeout set to 120 # selftests: resctrl: resctrl_tests # TAP version 13 # # Fail: Check kernel supports resctrl filesystem # 1..0 # SKIP resctrl FS does not exist. Enable X86_CPU_RESCTRL config option. ok 1 selftests: resctrl: resctrl_tests # SKIP make: Leaving directory '/root/git/linux/tools/testing/selftests' [linux]# grep X86_CPU_RESCTRL .config CONFIG_X86_CPU_RESCTRL=y Can you share how to make /sys/fs/resctrl so that I can check if the recent changes in block tree can avoid this warning? > > > > > > There are only trivial changes to the resctrl code between > > > v6.12 (which works) and v6.13-rc1: > > > > > > $ git log --oneline v6.13-rc1 ^v6.12 -- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl > > > 5a4b3fbb4849 Merge tag 'x86_cache_for_v6.13' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip > > > 9bce6e94c4b3 x86/resctrl: Support Sub-NUMA cluster mode SNC6 > > > 29eaa7958367 x86/resctrl: Slightly clean-up mbm_config_show() > > > > > > So something in kernfs? Or the way resctrl uses kernfs? > > > > I am not seeing this but that may be because I am not testing with > > selinux enabled. My test kernel has: > > # CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX is not set > > > > I am also not running with any btrfs filesystems. > > > > Is this your usual setup in which you are seeing this the first time? Is it > > perhaps possible for you to bisect? > > Bisection says: > > $ git bisect bad > f1be1788a32e8fa63416ad4518bbd1a85a825c9d is the first bad commit > commit f1be1788a32e8fa63416ad4518bbd1a85a825c9d > Author: Ming Lei > Date: Fri Oct 25 08:37:20 2024 +0800 > > block: model freeze & enter queue as lock for supporting lockdep > > > > > The subject states "resctrl mount fail" - could you please confirm if > > resctrl cannot be mounted in addition to the lockdep warning? It seems one lockdep false positive, but it shouldn't cause 'resctrl mount fail', I will take a look at the lock chains and see if some of them can be cut. Thanks, Ming