public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@inktank.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Ceph Development <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
	davidlohr@hp.com, jason.low2@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/mutexes: Revert "locking/mutexes: Add extra reschedule point"
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 15:13:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140731131331.GT19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALFYKtBGQpxaZ0EFXbdvuEHeDeASeU-7XxQ_1a6ZDM=aJS651w@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2107 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 04:37:29PM +0400, Ilya Dryomov wrote:

> This didn't make sense to me at first too, and I'll be happy to be
> proven wrong, but we can reproduce this with rbd very reliably under
> higher than usual load, and the revert makes it go away.  What we are
> seeing in the rbd scenario is the following.

This is drivers/block/rbd.c ? I can find but a single mutex_lock() in
there.

> Suppose foo needs mutexes A and B, bar needs mutex B.  foo acquires
> A and then wants to acquire B, but B is held by bar.  foo spins
> a little and ends up calling schedule_preempt_disabled() on line 484
> above, but that call never returns, even though a hundred usecs later
> bar releases B.  foo ends up stuck in mutex_lock() indefinitely, but
> still holds A and everybody else who needs A gets behind A.  Given that
> this A happens to be a central libceph mutex all rbd activity halts.
> Deadlock may not be the best term for this, but never returning from
> mutex_lock(&B) even though B has been unlocked is *a* problem.
> 
> This obviously doesn't happen every time schedule_preempt_disabled() on
> line 484 is called, so there must be some sort of race here.  I'll send
> along the actual rbd stack traces shortly.

Smells like maybe current->state != TASK_RUNNING, does the below
trigger?

If so, you've wrecked something in whatever...

---
 kernel/locking/mutex.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index ae712b25e492..3d726fdaa764 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -473,8 +473,12 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
 	 * reschedule now, before we try-lock the mutex. This avoids getting
 	 * scheduled out right after we obtained the mutex.
 	 */
-	if (need_resched())
+	if (need_resched()) {
+		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(current->state != TASK_RUNNING))
+			__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+
 		schedule_preempt_disabled();
+	}
 #endif
 	spin_lock_mutex(&lock->wait_lock, flags);
 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2014-07-31 13:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-07-31 10:16 [PATCH] locking/mutexes: Revert "locking/mutexes: Add extra reschedule point" Ilya Dryomov
2014-07-31 11:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-31 12:37   ` Ilya Dryomov
2014-07-31 13:13     ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-07-31 13:25       ` Ilya Dryomov
2014-07-31 13:44       ` Ingo Molnar
2014-07-31 13:56         ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-02 20:04           ` [RFC][PATCH] locking: Debug nested wait/locking primitives Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-31 14:30       ` [PATCH] locking/mutexes: Revert "locking/mutexes: Add extra reschedule point" Mike Galbraith
2014-07-31 14:37         ` Ilya Dryomov
2014-07-31 14:39         ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-01 12:56           ` Ilya Dryomov
2014-08-01 13:27             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-08-01 13:50               ` Ilya Dryomov

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=20140731131331.GT19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
    --cc=ilya.dryomov@inktank.com \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@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