From: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
To: gregkh@suse.de
Cc: kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] sysfs: don't use global workqueue in sysfs_schedule_callback()
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:11:36 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090325211136.GC30098@ldl.fc.hp.com> (raw)
A sysfs attribute using sysfs_schedule_callback() to commit suicide
may end up calling device_unregister(), which will eventually call
a driver's ->remove function.
Drivers may call flush_scheduled_work() in their shutdown routines,
in which case lockdep will complain with something like the following:
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.29-rc8-kk #1
---------------------------------------------
events/4/56 is trying to acquire lock:
(events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257fc0>] flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa0
but task is already holding lock:
(events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
other info that might help us debug this:
3 locks held by events/4/56:
#0: (events){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
#1: (&ss->work){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80257648>] run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
#2: (pci_remove_rescan_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803c10d1>] remove_callback+0x21/0x40
stack backtrace:
Pid: 56, comm: events/4 Not tainted 2.6.29-rc8-kk #1
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8026dfcd>] validate_chain+0xb7d/0x1260
[<ffffffff8026eade>] __lock_acquire+0x42e/0xa40
[<ffffffff8026f148>] lock_acquire+0x58/0x80
[<ffffffff80257fc0>] ? flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa0
[<ffffffff8025800d>] flush_workqueue+0x4d/0xa0
[<ffffffff80257fc0>] ? flush_workqueue+0x0/0xa0
[<ffffffff80258070>] flush_scheduled_work+0x10/0x20
[<ffffffffa0144065>] e1000_remove+0x55/0xfe [e1000e]
[<ffffffff8033ee30>] ? sysfs_schedule_callback_work+0x0/0x50
[<ffffffff803bfeb2>] pci_device_remove+0x32/0x70
[<ffffffff80441da9>] __device_release_driver+0x59/0x90
[<ffffffff80441edb>] device_release_driver+0x2b/0x40
[<ffffffff804419d6>] bus_remove_device+0xa6/0x120
[<ffffffff8043e46b>] device_del+0x12b/0x190
[<ffffffff8043e4f6>] device_unregister+0x26/0x70
[<ffffffff803ba969>] pci_stop_dev+0x49/0x60
[<ffffffff803baab0>] pci_remove_bus_device+0x40/0xc0
[<ffffffff803c10d9>] remove_callback+0x29/0x40
[<ffffffff8033ee4f>] sysfs_schedule_callback_work+0x1f/0x50
[<ffffffff8025769a>] run_workqueue+0x15a/0x230
[<ffffffff80257648>] ? run_workqueue+0x108/0x230
[<ffffffff8025846f>] worker_thread+0x9f/0x100
[<ffffffff8025bce0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
[<ffffffff802583d0>] ? worker_thread+0x0/0x100
[<ffffffff8025b89d>] kthread+0x4d/0x80
[<ffffffff8020d4ba>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
[<ffffffff8020cebc>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
[<ffffffff8025b850>] ? kthread+0x0/0x80
[<ffffffff8020d4b0>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
Although we know that the device_unregister path will never acquire
a lock that a driver might try to acquire in its ->remove, in general
we should never attempt to flush a workqueue from within the same
workqueue, and lockdep rightly complains.
So as long as sysfs attributes cannot commit suicide directly and we
are stuck with this callback mechanism, put the sysfs callbacks on
their own workqueue instead of the global one.
This has the side benefit that if a suicidal sysfs attribute kicks
off a long chain of ->remove callbacks, we no longer induce a long
delay on the global queue.
Reported-by: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
Tested-by: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@hp.com>
---
This also fixes a missing module_put in the error path introduced
by sysfs-only-allow-one-scheduled-removal-callback-per-kobj.patch.
We never destroy the workqueue, but I'm not sure that's a
problem.
---
file.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
---
diff --git a/fs/sysfs/file.c b/fs/sysfs/file.c
index 289c43a..979e937 100644
--- a/fs/sysfs/file.c
+++ b/fs/sysfs/file.c
@@ -667,6 +667,7 @@ struct sysfs_schedule_callback_struct {
struct work_struct work;
};
+static struct workqueue_struct *sysfs_workqueue;
static DEFINE_MUTEX(sysfs_workq_mutex);
static LIST_HEAD(sysfs_workq);
static void sysfs_schedule_callback_work(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -715,11 +716,20 @@ int sysfs_schedule_callback(struct kobject *kobj, void (*func)(void *),
mutex_lock(&sysfs_workq_mutex);
list_for_each_entry_safe(ss, tmp, &sysfs_workq, workq_list)
if (ss->kobj == kobj) {
+ module_put(owner);
mutex_unlock(&sysfs_workq_mutex);
return -EAGAIN;
}
mutex_unlock(&sysfs_workq_mutex);
+ if (sysfs_workqueue == NULL) {
+ sysfs_workqueue = create_workqueue("sysfsd");
+ if (sysfs_workqueue == NULL) {
+ module_put(owner);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+ }
+
ss = kmalloc(sizeof(*ss), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!ss) {
module_put(owner);
@@ -735,7 +745,7 @@ int sysfs_schedule_callback(struct kobject *kobj, void (*func)(void *),
mutex_lock(&sysfs_workq_mutex);
list_add_tail(&ss->workq_list, &sysfs_workq);
mutex_unlock(&sysfs_workq_mutex);
- schedule_work(&ss->work);
+ queue_work(sysfs_workqueue, &ss->work);
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sysfs_schedule_callback);
next reply other threads:[~2009-03-25 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-25 21:11 Alex Chiang [this message]
2009-04-03 20:52 ` [PATCH] sysfs: don't use global workqueue in sysfs_schedule_callback() Alex Chiang
2009-04-04 4:36 ` Greg KH
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=20090325211136.GC30098@ldl.fc.hp.com \
--to=achiang@hp.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.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