From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 11:36:49 +0900 From: Sergey Senozhatsky To: Byungchul Park Cc: Bart Van Assche , peterz@infradead.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com" , "martin.petersen@oracle.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-next: Tree for Aug 22] Message-ID: <20170823023649.GD10329@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> References: <20170822183816.7925e0f8@canb.auug.org.au> <20170822104708.GA491@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain> <1503438234.2508.27.camel@wdc.com> <20170823000304.GK20323@X58A-UD3R> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20170823000304.GK20323@X58A-UD3R> List-ID: On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote: [..] aha, ok > The report is talking about the following lockup: > > A work in a worker A task work on exit to user > ------------------ --------------------------- > mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex) > mutext_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex) > blk_execute_rq() > wait_for_completion_io_timeout(&A) > complete(&A) > > Is this impossible? I was really confused how this "unlock" may lead to a deadlock > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > Possible unsafe locking scenario by crosslock: > > > CPU0 CPU1 > > > ---- ---- > > > lock(&bdev->bd_mutex); > > > lock((complete)&wait#2); > > > lock(&bdev->bd_mutex); > > > unlock((complete)&wait#2); any chance the report can be improved? mention timeout, etc? // well, if this functionality will stay. p.s. Bart Van Assche, thanks for Cc-ing Park Byungchul, I was really sure I didn't enabled the cross-release, but apparently I was wrong: CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE=y CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS=y -ss