From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: percpu allocator vs reclaim
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:36:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1236184563.5330.8074.camel@laptop> (raw)
Hi Tejun,
Thomas hit the below on recent -tip kernels.
[ 371.513742] ======================================================
[ 371.514672] [ INFO: RECLAIM_FS-safe -> RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock order detected ]
[ 371.514672] 2.6.29-rc6-tip-02441-g4239438-dirty #36
[ 371.514672] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 371.514672] umount/19574 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] is trying to acquire:
[ 371.514672] (pcpu_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810c589e>] free_percpu+0x2f/0x17e
[ 371.514672]
[ 371.514672] and this task is already holding:
[ 371.514672] (&type->s_lock_key#7){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff810c9367>] lock_super+0x29/0x2b
[ 371.514672] which would create a new lock dependency:
[ 371.514672] (&type->s_lock_key#7){+.+...} -> (pcpu_mutex){+.+.+.}
[ 371.514672]
[ 371.514672] but this new dependency connects a RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe lock:
[ 371.514672] (jbd_handle){+.+.-.}
[ 371.514672] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe at:
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8105f36a>] __lock_acquire+0x79a/0x160a
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8106022f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffffa002ceb8>] journal_start+0x10e/0x11a [jbd]
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffffa004aa39>] ext3_journal_start_sb+0x4a/0x4c [ext3]
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffffa0040db2>] ext3_ordered_writepage+0x56/0x140 [ext3]
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8109f0f5>] shrink_page_list+0x37d/0x62d
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8109f9c0>] shrink_list+0x2a3/0x5a5
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8109ff41>] shrink_zone+0x27f/0x329
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff810a086c>] kswapd+0x49e/0x684
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff810502c5>] kthread+0x49/0x76
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8100cbfa>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
[ 371.514672]
[ 371.514672] to a RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe lock:
[ 371.514672] (pcpu_mutex){+.+.+.}
[ 371.514672] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe at:
[ 371.514672] ... [<ffffffff8105dced>] mark_held_locks+0x4d/0x69
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8105dd7e>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x75/0x77
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff810c27b8>] __kmalloc+0x61/0xf8
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff810c57cd>] pcpu_realloc+0x2e/0x91
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff810c5a64>] pcpu_alloc_area+0x77/0x376
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff810c5e25>] __alloc_percpu+0xc2/0x395
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8116dc04>] __percpu_counter_init+0x51/0x9c
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff815579f9>] files_init+0x74/0x78
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff81557bd6>] vfs_caches_init+0x10b/0x121
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8153dbf3>] start_kernel+0x340/0x383
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8153d29a>] x86_64_start_reservations+0xaa/0xae
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffff8153d36e>] x86_64_start_kernel+0xd0/0xd7
[ 371.514672] [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
<snip>
[ 373.367127] stack backtrace:
[ 373.367127] Pid: 19574, comm: umount Not tainted 2.6.29-rc6-tip-02441-g4239438-dirty #36
[ 373.367127] Call Trace:
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff8105eafa>] check_usage+0x3ca/0x3db
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff8105eb6c>] check_irq_usage+0x61/0xc5
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff8105fbe8>] __lock_acquire+0x1018/0x160a
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff812df330>] ? io_schedule+0x82/0xa5
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff8106022f>] lock_acquire+0x55/0x71
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810c589e>] ? free_percpu+0x2f/0x17e
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff812dff40>] mutex_lock_nested+0x45/0x29e
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810c589e>] ? free_percpu+0x2f/0x17e
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff812dfa79>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x115/0x121
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff8105df29>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x114/0x138
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810c589e>] free_percpu+0x2f/0x17e
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff8116dba7>] percpu_counter_destroy+0x3f/0x4b
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffffa0049056>] ext3_put_super+0xc7/0x21e [ext3]
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810ca04c>] generic_shutdown_super+0x73/0xe8
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810ca0e3>] kill_block_super+0x22/0x3a
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810ca1ca>] deactivate_super+0x68/0x7d
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810ddbeb>] mntput_no_expire+0x106/0x147
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff810de1b9>] sys_umount+0x2dd/0x30c
[ 373.367127] [<ffffffff8100bb1b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
Which basically states that we could deadlock due to reclaim lock
recursion.
Looking at the code I don't see a quick solution, other than using
GFP_NOFS, which is a bit of a bother (as I suspect it might easily grow
__GFP_IO inversion too, if it doesn't already have it).
next reply other threads:[~2009-03-04 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-04 16:36 Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-03-04 16:40 ` percpu allocator vs reclaim Tejun Heo
2009-03-04 16:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-03-05 8:11 ` Tejun Heo
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=1236184563.5330.8074.camel@laptop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.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