From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Martin Schwidefsky <martin.schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <h.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: ksm/memory hotplug: lockdep warning for ksm_thread_mutex vs. (memory_chain).rwsem
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:49:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120716144951.1f1f574a@thinkpad> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHGf_=rm286b5FWVRQ8Ob0vakxNcNOHPUksCtnZj4PvOEz47Jg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:00:45 -0500
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>:
> > Setting a memory block offline triggers the following lockdep
> > warning. This looks exactly like the issue reported by Kosaki
> > Motohiro in https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/25/110. Seems like the
> > resulting commit a0b0f58cdd did not fix the lockdep warning. I'm
> > able to reproduce it with current 3.3.0-rc2 as well as
> > 2.6.37-rc4-00147-ga0b0f58.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with lockdep annotations, but I tried using
> > down_read_nested() for (memory_chain).rwsem, similar to the
> > mutex_lock_nested() which was introduced for ksm_thread_mutex, but
> > that didn't help.
>
> Heh, interesting. Simple question, do you have any user visible buggy
> behavior? or just false positive warn issue?
>
> *_nested() is just hacky trick. so, any change may break their lie.
> Anyway I'd like to dig this one. thanks for reporting.
Hi,
any news on this? I'm still getting test reports about the lockdep
warning: the problem is still present in 3.5.0-rc7 and it still looks
like a false-positive to me (both locks inside mem_hotplug_mutex, so
there can't be a deadlock, see also comment in mm/ksm.c). Any ideas how
to convince lockdep of that, so that we can run memory hotplug tests
again with lockdep enabled?
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.5.0-rc7 #40 Not tainted
-------------------------------------------------------
sh/698 is trying to acquire lock:
((memory_chain).rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<0000000000165372>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5e/0xe0
but task is already holding lock:
(ksm_thread_mutex/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<000000000026a654>] ksm_memory_callback+0x48/0xd8
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (ksm_thread_mutex/1){+.+.+.}:
[<00000000001a5b42>] __lock_acquire+0x3f6/0xb28
[<00000000001a69d2>] lock_acquire+0xbe/0x250
[<000000000064cefc>] mutex_lock_nested+0x98/0x3f4
[<000000000026a654>] ksm_memory_callback+0x48/0xd8
[<0000000000653af4>] notifier_call_chain+0x8c/0x174
[<0000000000165388>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x74/0xe0
[<000000000016541e>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2a/0x3c
[<0000000000638cb4>] offline_pages.constprop.1+0x17c/0x740
[<00000000004b5326>] memory_block_change_state+0x2aa/0x328
[<00000000004b545e>] store_mem_state+0xba/0xf0
[<000000000030b5f2>] sysfs_write_file+0xf6/0x1a8
[<0000000000283a3a>] vfs_write+0x9a/0x184
[<0000000000283d94>] SyS_write+0x58/0x94
[<00000000006514f4>] sysc_noemu+0x22/0x28
[<000003fffd5aa3e8>] 0x3fffd5aa3e8
-> #0 ((memory_chain).rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[<00000000001a22bc>] validate_chain+0x880/0x1154
[<00000000001a5b42>] __lock_acquire+0x3f6/0xb28
[<00000000001a69d2>] lock_acquire+0xbe/0x250
[<000000000064d8a6>] down_read+0x66/0xdc
[<0000000000165372>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5e/0xe0
[<000000000016541e>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2a/0x3c
[<0000000000638d00>] offline_pages.constprop.1+0x1c8/0x740
[<00000000004b5326>] memory_block_change_state+0x2aa/0x328
[<00000000004b545e>] store_mem_state+0xba/0xf0
[<000000000030b5f2>] sysfs_write_file+0xf6/0x1a8
[<0000000000283a3a>] vfs_write+0x9a/0x184
[<0000000000283d94>] SyS_write+0x58/0x94
[<00000000006514f4>] sysc_noemu+0x22/0x28
[<000003fffd5aa3e8>] 0x3fffd5aa3e8
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(ksm_thread_mutex/1);
lock((memory_chain).rwsem);
lock(ksm_thread_mutex/1);
lock((memory_chain).rwsem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
6 locks held by sh/698:
#0: (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<000000000030b546>] sysfs_write_file+0x4a/0x1a8
#1: (s_active#31){.+.+.+}, at: [<000000000030b5ce>] sysfs_write_file+0xd2/0x1a8
#2: (&mem->state_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<00000000004b50be>] memory_block_change_state+0x42/0x328
#3: (mem_hotplug_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<0000000000275324>] lock_memory_hotplug+0x2c/0x4c
#4: (pm_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<0000000000638c22>] offline_pages.constprop.1+0xea/0x740
#5: (ksm_thread_mutex/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<000000000026a654>] ksm_memory_callback+0x48/0xd8
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 Not tainted 3.5.0-rc7 #40
Process sh (pid: 698, task: 00000000d6b74850, ksp: 00000000d71c7ac0)
00000000d71c78d8 00000000d71c78e8 0000000000000002 0000000000000000
00000000d71c7978 00000000d71c78f0 00000000d71c78f0 00000000001009e0
0000000000000000 0000000000000001 000000000000000b 000000000000000b
00000000d71c7938 00000000d71c78d8 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
0000000000660768 00000000001009e0 00000000d71c78d8 00000000d71c7928
Call Trace:
([<00000000001008e6>] show_trace+0xee/0x144)
[<000000000064436e>] print_circular_bug+0x2ee/0x300
[<00000000001a22bc>] validate_chain+0x880/0x1154
[<00000000001a5b42>] __lock_acquire+0x3f6/0xb28
[<00000000001a69d2>] lock_acquire+0xbe/0x250
[<000000000064d8a6>] down_read+0x66/0xdc
[<0000000000165372>] __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x5e/0xe0
[<000000000016541e>] blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x2a/0x3c
[<0000000000638d00>] offline_pages.constprop.1+0x1c8/0x740
[<00000000004b5326>] memory_block_change_state+0x2aa/0x328
[<00000000004b545e>] store_mem_state+0xba/0xf0
[<000000000030b5f2>] sysfs_write_file+0xf6/0x1a8
[<0000000000283a3a>] vfs_write+0x9a/0x184
[<0000000000283d94>] SyS_write+0x58/0x94
[<00000000006514f4>] sysc_noemu+0x22/0x28
[<000003fffd5aa3e8>] 0x3fffd5aa3e8
INFO: lockdep is turned off.
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-16 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-02 16:13 ksm/memory hotplug: lockdep warning for ksm_thread_mutex vs. (memory_chain).rwsem Gerald Schaefer
2012-02-02 23:00 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-02-03 15:37 ` Gerald Schaefer
2012-07-16 12:49 ` Gerald Schaefer [this message]
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=20120716144951.1f1f574a@thinkpad \
--to=gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=h.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=martin.schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).