From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
acme@ghostprotocols.net, paulus@samba.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: perf/workqueue: lockdep warning on process exit
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 11:57:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140617155752.GD31819@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <539EFE3A.7020700@oracle.com>
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 10:24:58AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> [ 430.429005] ======================================================
> [ 430.429005] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 430.429005] 3.15.0-next-20140613-sasha-00026-g6dd125d-dirty #654 Not tainted
> [ 430.429005] -------------------------------------------------------
> [ 430.429005] trinity-c578/9725 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 430.429005] (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: __queue_work (kernel/workqueue.c:1346)
> [ 430.429005]
> [ 430.429005] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 430.429005] (&ctx->lock){-.....}, at: perf_event_exit_task (kernel/events/core.c:7471 kernel/events/core.c:7533)
> [ 430.439509]
> [ 430.439509] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 430.439509]
> [ 430.439509]
> [ 430.439509] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 430.439509]
> -> #3 (&ctx->lock){-.....}:
...
> -> #2 (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}:
...
> -> #1 (&p->pi_lock){-.-.-.}:
...
> -> #0 (&(&pool->lock)->rlock){-.-...}:
...
> [ 430.450111] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 430.450111]
> [ 430.450111] Chain exists of:
> &(&pool->lock)->rlock --> &rq->lock --> &ctx->lock
>
> [ 430.450111] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 430.450111]
> [ 430.450111] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 430.450111] ---- ----
> [ 430.450111] lock(&ctx->lock);
> [ 430.450111] lock(&rq->lock);
> [ 430.450111] lock(&ctx->lock);
> [ 430.450111] lock(&(&pool->lock)->rlock);
> [ 430.450111]
> [ 430.450111] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 430.450111]
> [ 430.450111] 1 lock held by trinity-c578/9725:
> [ 430.450111] #0: (&ctx->lock){-.....}, at: perf_event_exit_task (kernel/events/core.c:7471 kernel/events/core.c:7533)
> [ 430.450111]
> [ 430.450111] stack backtrace:
> [ 430.450111] CPU: 6 PID: 9725 Comm: trinity-c578 Not tainted 3.15.0-next-20140613-sasha-00026-g6dd125d-dirty #654
> [ 430.450111] ffffffffadb45840 ffff880101787848 ffffffffaa511b1c 0000000000000003
> [ 430.450111] ffffffffadb8a4c0 ffff880101787898 ffffffffaa5044e2 0000000000000001
> [ 430.450111] ffff880101787928 ffff880101787898 ffff8800aed98cf8 ffff8800aed98000
> [ 430.450111] Call Trace:
> [ 430.450111] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52)
> [ 430.450111] print_circular_bug (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1216)
> [ 430.450111] __lock_acquire (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1840 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1945 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2131 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3182)
> [ 430.450111] lock_acquire (./arch/x86/include/asm/current.h:14 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3602)
> [ 430.450111] _raw_spin_lock (include/linux/spinlock_api_smp.h:143 kernel/locking/spinlock.c:151)
> [ 430.450111] __queue_work (kernel/workqueue.c:1346)
> [ 430.450111] queue_work_on (kernel/workqueue.c:1424)
> [ 430.450111] free_object (lib/debugobjects.c:209)
> [ 430.450111] __debug_check_no_obj_freed (lib/debugobjects.c:715)
> [ 430.450111] debug_check_no_obj_freed (lib/debugobjects.c:727)
> [ 430.450111] kmem_cache_free (mm/slub.c:2683 mm/slub.c:2711)
> [ 430.450111] free_task (kernel/fork.c:221)
> [ 430.450111] __put_task_struct (kernel/fork.c:250)
> [ 430.450111] put_ctx (include/linux/sched.h:1855 kernel/events/core.c:898)
> [ 430.450111] perf_event_exit_task (kernel/events/core.c:907 kernel/events/core.c:7478 kernel/events/core.c:7533)
> [ 430.450111] do_exit (kernel/exit.c:766)
So, perf_event_exit_task() ends up freeing perf_events under
perf_event_context->lock which may nest inside rq lock. With
SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS enabled, sl?b calls into debugobjects which in turn
call into workqueue for its internal management. This leads to
possible deadlock as workqueue is now being invoked under a lock which
nests under rq lock.
This is a really low level feature invoking high level debugging
facility leading to possible deadlocks. I don't know why it showed up
now and there may be better ways but the default thing to do seems to
be turning off SLAB_DEBUG_OBJECTS for perf_events.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-17 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-16 14:24 perf/workqueue: lockdep warning on process exit Sasha Levin
2014-06-16 21:41 ` Sasha Levin
2014-06-17 15:57 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2014-06-23 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-06-25 21:17 ` Sasha Levin
2014-07-07 13:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-16 19:19 ` [tip:perf/urgent] perf: Fix " tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
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=20140617155752.GD31819@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@ghostprotocols.net \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
/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