From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qt1-f175.google.com (mail-qt1-f175.google.com [209.85.160.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3DEE1BD9DF; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:04:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.175 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730329471; cv=none; b=mMDhZ8EtNPEJnUFet1KICvTWwmgJrIQgRYStwP2FF7BIgZRNFj3rVkylIviw6wHDTBQwONDsCA7g9Ig1TdqVGTVo8U6fBOLbyiBUEL9GEyNZsp8FgRa77crcSPnNZOi+q9FDxUkV5SjjLNioXqsseiB2Gtgs7Kzy0vex6YuEgxw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730329471; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ec4D5SyBdaBhg+W6wXsrh9nu22khEYqGIQhe+ODvsks=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mw2h7fMOELVQogpHgPkr0frZpEsENMCa/Ktgu7/3AEpnob7jqRhogDeYtRSTJ7SzKpFcwpuSFrHG3Lhk2/Td3/hQg/ZcsQJIeSskxV7KNdotCDNVpLLqPm0MMWxo4hcJQAiOw94Hkqr5WkLbIFkeWHVZq/CI3HQIEiVuOuGG7FE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=l7/0uMgG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.175 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="l7/0uMgG" Received: by mail-qt1-f175.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4611abb6bd5so2618911cf.1; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:04:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1730329468; x=1730934268; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:feedback-id:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=PLJJBAKyQj+SNUNmxz2AeNTsEKRK6TwiIX+0O6pGNdQ=; b=l7/0uMgGhfsM/sdsI16tTA72CUkvAhvKgPrZE2zp/8y44vr0MEJ1TPM9X0lASO3mib KQPdeeZ5+XjVLXkqlZ/Gl+yEzIhFCmH3L0a16IHefazeI7BJ7pK6EBwTS3FljgmD7NKY PzkacNugcA3xpJSSJxJAXxZx1mX5p3mLnc/4WBva/T0naDfu1P7Y1ax4EBlWSQ9NgktO 9si2CdGnO5US8jYkCSuQcRCJA5MXU3kkGtSow/ogjn1NHhWD1bhx1cG/Xpf6G3dduu4z AfjxacszyJdxLcSfIreB1vA41j/bJnoSkA2gHT130sUCkHYXStbEfqv0gevV8RQ6jceI Xo3A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730329468; x=1730934268; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:feedback-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=PLJJBAKyQj+SNUNmxz2AeNTsEKRK6TwiIX+0O6pGNdQ=; b=F9EL/fTeq2wf7975Jb7FAbaWbVh8SIF1jLZaSIkLIMsGbABN1b4XjH3Q11Hg+zMdPH YXwVXqBo/yPmJDVgZfQHP5W8rsnGMI3AGjdFus9E8RyqtzqFtzCwiOmb9FCnHkr+5P0X C5BErKyx6lyiFwzoUFZpdmi8nWM0bBpsBULjqYrlS6gmJiH2l7RinYSPD4/jCU6T+5IF 67t0S5IKRtgOJEePJ3o2NrBZJZDDPUSHKg5sJegtlFVGV/0YYuyhu+RZxCf16m6/K1se ba5cZMD+hIqFgqKxdefUKnSBCzniX/AzAyws7Q7C7NDUEMSqJMNLJcNtis9xbcqhz43G omgA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVSd/ZdXR9gfWfJM0x+OF6YTxgLOKInYi92Kv+d0uf0c18q2JXABy197Kk5EAaqzKiq+RwaMUruPhrr3x8=@vger.kernel.org, AJvYcCXU3Mu9/ApjjQUbi0MWNeSY5ZSkiQmHI8rcAndfFTwYzCIH77kpNgle0YtDWkwkAGYp241ZDjTeT8V56w==@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyyOoegXuelpaPGu6BaRUUPgdBYAd8CGK6uZfJhCS78/6sxtgil NaGXPe0ng+E0nRnasBdwXQbp02vGq3bDxf9xjOCzLCXmeu87WjTF X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFMAcf+dFBcoD7SGdRauKrebHUvmAG2ECPiTluSnfadQE+H/b/qksVg722bKVaJXipBpbHcLw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:58e:b0:461:148b:1884 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4613bfd0547mr250096891cf.11.1730329467740; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fauth-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fauth-a2-smtp.messagingengine.com. [103.168.172.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d75a77b69052e-462ad19b328sm1220441cf.85.2024.10.30.16.04.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:04:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.phl.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfauth.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72ED31200066; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:04:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:04:26 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrvdekgedgtdehucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvden ucfhrhhomhepuehoqhhunhcuhfgvnhhguceosghoqhhunhdrfhgvnhhgsehgmhgrihhlrd gtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeevgfejgfevfeevteegffdvhedtgfekvefgledv teffgeffveeiuedvieethfdugeenucffohhmrghinhepqhgvmhhurdhorhhgnecuvehluh hsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepsghoqhhunhdomhgv shhmthhprghuthhhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqieelvdeghedtieegqddujeejkeehhe ehvddqsghoqhhunhdrfhgvnhhgpeepghhmrghilhdrtghomhesfhhigihmvgdrnhgrmhgv pdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeduiedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepvg hlvhgvrhesghhoohhglhgvrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepvhgsrggskhgrsehsuhhsvgdr tgiipdhrtghpthhtohepphgruhhlmhgtkheskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoh eplhhinhhugidqnhgvgihtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohep lhhinhhugidqkhgvrhhnvghlsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtoh epkhgrshgrnhdquggvvhesghhoohhglhgvghhrohhuphhsrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohep lhhinhhugidqmhhmsehkvhgrtghkrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepshhfrhestggrnhgsrd gruhhughdrohhrghdrrghupdhrtghpthhtohepsghighgvrghshieslhhinhhuthhrohhn ihigrdguvg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: iad51458e:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:04:24 -0700 From: Boqun Feng To: Marco Elver Cc: Vlastimil Babka , paulmck@kernel.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, bigeasy@linutronix.de, longman@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [BUG] -next lockdep invalid wait context Message-ID: References: <41619255-cdc2-4573-a360-7794fc3614f7@paulmck-laptop> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-next@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: On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:34:08PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:48PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 10/30/24 22:05, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > Hi! > > > > > The next-20241030 release gets the splat shown below when running > > > scftorture in a preemptible kernel. This bisects to this commit: > > > > > > 560af5dc839e ("lockdep: Enable PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING with PROVE_LOCKING") > > > > > > Except that all this is doing is enabling lockdep to find the problem. > > > > > > The obvious way to fix this is to make the kmem_cache structure's > > > cpu_slab field's ->lock be a raw spinlock, but this might not be what > > > we want for real-time response. > > > > But it's a local_lock, not spinlock and it's doing local_lock_irqsave(). I'm > > confused what's happening here, the code has been like this for years now. > > > > > This can be reproduced deterministically as follows: > > > > > > tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --torture scf --allcpus --duration 2 --configs PREEMPT --kconfig CONFIG_NR_CPUS=64 --memory 7G --trust-make --kasan --bootargs "scftorture.nthreads=64 torture.disable_onoff_at_boot csdlock_debug=1" > > > > > > I doubt that the number of CPUs or amount of memory makes any difference, > > > but that is what I used. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > [ 35.659746] ============================= > > > [ 35.659746] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ] > > > [ 35.659746] 6.12.0-rc5-next-20241029 #57233 Not tainted > > > [ 35.659746] ----------------------------- > > > [ 35.659746] swapper/37/0 is trying to lock: > > > [ 35.659746] ffff8881ff4bf2f0 (&c->lock){....}-{3:3}, at: put_cpu_partial+0x49/0x1b0 > > > [ 35.659746] other info that might help us debug this: > > > [ 35.659746] context-{2:2} > > > [ 35.659746] no locks held by swapper/37/0. > > > [ 35.659746] stack backtrace: > > > [ 35.659746] CPU: 37 UID: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/37 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5-next-20241029 #57233 > > > [ 35.659746] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 > > > [ 35.659746] Call Trace: > > > [ 35.659746] > > > [ 35.659746] dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0xa0 > > > [ 35.659746] __lock_acquire+0x8fd/0x3b90 > > > [ 35.659746] ? start_secondary+0x113/0x210 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] lock_acquire+0x19b/0x520 > > > [ 35.659746] ? put_cpu_partial+0x49/0x1b0 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] ? lock_release+0x20f/0x6f0 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] ? lock_release+0x20f/0x6f0 > > > [ 35.659746] ? kasan_save_track+0x14/0x30 > > > [ 35.659746] put_cpu_partial+0x52/0x1b0 > > > [ 35.659746] ? put_cpu_partial+0x49/0x1b0 > > > [ 35.659746] ? __pfx_scf_handler_1+0x10/0x10 > > > [ 35.659746] __flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x2d2/0x600 > > > > How did we even get to put_cpu_partial directly from flushing smp calls? > > SLUB doesn't use them, it uses queue_work_on)_ for flushing and that > > flushing doesn't involve put_cpu_partial() AFAIK. > > > > I think only slab allocation or free can lead to put_cpu_partial() that > > would mean the backtrace is missing something. And that somebody does a slab > > alloc/free from a smp callback, which I'd then assume isn't allowed? > I think in this particular case, it is queuing a callback for smp_call_function_single() which doesn't have an interrupt handle thread AKAICT, that means the callback will be executed in non-threaded hardirq context, and that makes locks must be taken with real interrupt disabled. Using irq_work might be fine, because it has a handler thread (but the torture is for s(mp) c(all) f(unction), so replacing with irq_work is not really fixing it ;-)). Regards, Boqun > Tail-call optimization is hiding the caller. Compiling with > -fno-optimize-sibling-calls exposes the caller. This gives the full > picture: > > [ 40.321505] ============================= > [ 40.322711] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ] > [ 40.323927] 6.12.0-rc5-next-20241030-dirty #4 Not tainted > [ 40.325502] ----------------------------- > [ 40.326653] cpuhp/47/253 is trying to lock: > [ 40.327869] ffff8881ff9bf2f0 (&c->lock){....}-{3:3}, at: put_cpu_partial+0x48/0x1a0 > [ 40.330081] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 40.331540] context-{2:2} > [ 40.332305] 3 locks held by cpuhp/47/253: > [ 40.333468] #0: ffffffffae6e6910 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}, at: cpuhp_thread_fun+0xe0/0x590 > [ 40.336048] #1: ffffffffae6e9060 (cpuhp_state-down){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: cpuhp_thread_fun+0xe0/0x590 > [ 40.338607] #2: ffff8881002a6948 (&root->kernfs_rwsem){++++}-{4:4}, at: kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x78/0x100 > [ 40.341454] stack backtrace: > [ 40.342291] CPU: 47 UID: 0 PID: 253 Comm: cpuhp/47 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc5-next-20241030-dirty #4 > [ 40.344807] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.16.3-debian-1.16.3-2 04/01/2014 > [ 40.347482] Call Trace: > [ 40.348199] > [ 40.348827] dump_stack_lvl+0x6b/0xa0 > [ 40.349899] dump_stack+0x10/0x20 > [ 40.350850] __lock_acquire+0x900/0x4010 > [ 40.360290] lock_acquire+0x191/0x4f0 > [ 40.364850] put_cpu_partial+0x51/0x1a0 > [ 40.368341] scf_handler+0x1bd/0x290 > [ 40.370590] scf_handler_1+0x4e/0xb0 > [ 40.371630] __flush_smp_call_function_queue+0x2dd/0x600 > [ 40.373142] generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0xe/0x20 > [ 40.374801] __sysvec_call_function_single+0x50/0x280 > [ 40.376214] sysvec_call_function_single+0x6c/0x80 > [ 40.377543] > [ 40.378142] > > And scf_handler does indeed tail-call kfree: > > static void scf_handler(void *scfc_in) > { > [...] > } else { > kfree(scfcp); > } > }