From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f71.google.com (mail-pg0-f71.google.com [74.125.83.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7596B025F for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 06:09:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id m18so13150371pgd.13 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 03:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lgeamrelo11.lge.com (LGEAMRELO11.lge.com. [156.147.23.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i12si9799114pgn.621.2017.10.30.03.09.27 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2017 03:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 19:09:21 +0900 From: Byungchul Park Subject: Re: possible deadlock in lru_add_drain_all Message-ID: <20171030100921.GA18085@X58A-UD3R> References: <089e0825eec8955c1f055c83d476@google.com> <20171027093418.om5e566srz2ztsrk@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171027134234.7dyx4oshjwd44vqx@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20171030082203.4xvq2af25shfci2z@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171030082203.4xvq2af25shfci2z@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: Dmitry Vyukov , syzbot , Andrew Morton , Dan Williams , Johannes Weiner , Jan Kara , jglisse@redhat.com, LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, shli@fb.com, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, Thomas Gleixner , Vlastimil Babka , ying.huang@intel.com, kernel-team@lge.com, peterz@infradead.org On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:22:03AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > [Cc Byungchul. The original full report is > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/089e0825eec8955c1f055c83d476@google.com] > > Could you have a look please? This smells like a false positive to me. +cc peterz@infradead.org Hello, IMHO, the false positive was caused by the lockdep_map of 'cpuhp_state' which couldn't distinguish between cpu-up and cpu-down. And it was solved with the following commit by Peter and Thomas: 5f4b55e10645b7371322c800a5ec745cab487a6c smp/hotplug: Differentiate the AP-work lockdep class between up and down Therefore, we can avoid the false positive on later than the commit. Peter and Thomas, could you confirm it? Thanks, Byungchul > On Fri 27-10-17 15:42:34, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 27-10-17 11:44:58, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Fri 27-10-17 02:22:40, syzbot wrote: > > > >> Hello, > > > >> > > > >> syzkaller hit the following crash on > > > >> a31cc455c512f3f1dd5f79cac8e29a7c8a617af8 > > > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/master > > > >> compiler: gcc (GCC) 7.1.1 20170620 > > > >> .config is attached > > > >> Raw console output is attached. > > > > > > > > I do not see such a commit. My linux-next top is next-20171018 > > > > > > > > [...] > > > >> Chain exists of: > > > >> cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &pipe->mutex/1 --> &sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9 > > > >> > > > >> Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > > >> > > > >> CPU0 CPU1 > > > >> ---- ---- > > > >> lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9); > > > >> lock(&pipe->mutex/1); > > > >> lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9); > > > >> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem); > > > > > > > > I am quite confused about this report. Where exactly is the deadlock? > > > > I do not see where we would get pipe mutex from inside of the hotplug > > > > lock. Is it possible this is just a false possitive due to cross release > > > > feature? > > > > > > > > > As far as I understand this CPU0/CPU1 scheme works only for simple > > > cases with 2 mutexes. This seem to have larger cycle as denoted by > > > "the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:" section. > > > > My point was that lru_add_drain_all doesn't take any external locks > > other than lru_lock and that one is not anywhere in the chain AFAICS. > > > > -- > > Michal Hocko > > SUSE Labs > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs -- 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: email@kvack.org