Re: [linux-next] khugepaged inconsistent lock state

Hugh Dickins
2015-09-21T23:57:17Z

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:46:00PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918
> >
> > [18344.236625] =================================
> > [18344.236628] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> > [18344.236633] 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918-dbg-00014-ge5128d0-dirty #361 Not tainted
> > [18344.236636] ---------------------------------
> > [18344.236640] inconsistent {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} -> {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} usage.
> > [18344.236645] khugepaged/32 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > [18344.236648] (&anon_vma->rwsem){++++?.}, at: [<ffffffff81134403>] khugepaged+0x8b0/0x1987
> > [18344.236662] {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} state was registered at:
> > [18344.236666] [<ffffffff8107d747>] __lock_acquire+0x8e2/0x1183
> > [18344.236673] [<ffffffff8107e7ac>] lock_acquire+0x10b/0x1a6
> > [18344.236678] [<ffffffff8150a367>] down_write+0x3b/0x6a
> > [18344.236686] [<ffffffff811360d8>] split_huge_page_to_list+0x5b/0x61f
> > [18344.236689] [<ffffffff811224b3>] add_to_swap+0x37/0x78
> > [18344.236691] [<ffffffff810fd650>] shrink_page_list+0x4c2/0xb9a
> > [18344.236694] [<ffffffff810fe47c>] shrink_inactive_list+0x371/0x5d9
> > [18344.236696] [<ffffffff810fee2f>] shrink_lruvec+0x410/0x5ae
> > [18344.236698] [<ffffffff810ff024>] shrink_zone+0x57/0x140
> > [18344.236700] [<ffffffff810ffc79>] kswapd+0x6a5/0x91b
> > [18344.236702] [<ffffffff81059588>] kthread+0x107/0x10f
> > [18344.236706] [<ffffffff8150c7bf>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
> > [18344.236708] irq event stamp: 6517947
> > [18344.236709] hardirqs last enabled at (6517947): [<ffffffff810f2d0c>] get_page_from_freelist+0x362/0x59e
> > [18344.236713] hardirqs last disabled at (6517946): [<ffffffff8150ba41>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x18/0x51
> > [18344.236715] softirqs last enabled at (6507072): [<ffffffff81041cb0>] __do_softirq+0x2df/0x3f5
> > [18344.236719] softirqs last disabled at (6507055): [<ffffffff81041fb5>] irq_exit+0x40/0x94
> > [18344.236722]
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > [18344.236723] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > [18344.236724] CPU0
> > [18344.236725] ----
> > [18344.236726] lock(&anon_vma->rwsem);
> > [18344.236728] <Interrupt>
> > [18344.236729] lock(&anon_vma->rwsem);
> > [18344.236731]
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > [18344.236733] 2 locks held by khugepaged/32:
> > [18344.236733] #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff81134122>] khugepaged+0x5cf/0x1987
> > [18344.236738] #1: (&anon_vma->rwsem){++++?.}, at: [<ffffffff81134403>] khugepaged+0x8b0/0x1987
> > [18344.236741]
> > stack backtrace:
> > [18344.236744] CPU: 3 PID: 32 Comm: khugepaged Not tainted 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150918-dbg-00014-ge5128d0-dirty #361
> > [18344.236747] 0000000000000000 ffff880132827a00 ffffffff81230867 ffffffff8237ba90
> > [18344.236750] ffff880132827a38 ffffffff810ea9b9 000000000000000a ffff8801333b52e0
> > [18344.236753] ffff8801333b4c00 ffffffff8107b3ce 000000000000000a ffff880132827a78
> > [18344.236755] Call Trace:
> > [18344.236758] [<ffffffff81230867>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x79
> > [18344.236761] [<ffffffff810ea9b9>] print_usage_bug.part.24+0x259/0x268
> > [18344.236763] [<ffffffff8107b3ce>] ? print_shortest_lock_dependencies+0x180/0x180
> > [18344.236765] [<ffffffff8107c7fc>] mark_lock+0x381/0x567
> > [18344.236766] [<ffffffff8107ca40>] mark_held_locks+0x5e/0x74
> > [18344.236768] [<ffffffff8107ee9f>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0xb0/0xb3
> > [18344.236771] [<ffffffff810f30cc>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x99/0x856
> > [18344.236772] [<ffffffff810ebaf9>] ? find_get_entry+0x14b/0x17a
> > [18344.236774] [<ffffffff810ebb16>] ? find_get_entry+0x168/0x17a
> > [18344.236777] [<ffffffff811226d9>] __read_swap_cache_async+0x7b/0x1aa
> > [18344.236778] [<ffffffff8112281d>] read_swap_cache_async+0x15/0x2d
> > [18344.236780] [<ffffffff8112294f>] swapin_readahead+0x11a/0x16a
> > [18344.236783] [<ffffffff81112791>] do_swap_page+0xa7/0x36b
> > [18344.236784] [<ffffffff81112791>] ? do_swap_page+0xa7/0x36b
> > [18344.236787] [<ffffffff8113444c>] khugepaged+0x8f9/0x1987
> > [18344.236790] [<ffffffff810772f3>] ? wait_woken+0x88/0x88
> > [18344.236792] [<ffffffff81133b53>] ? maybe_pmd_mkwrite+0x1a/0x1a
> > [18344.236794] [<ffffffff81059588>] kthread+0x107/0x10f
> > [18344.236797] [<ffffffff81059481>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1ea/0x1ea
> > [18344.236799] [<ffffffff8150c7bf>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
> > [18344.236801] [<ffffffff81059481>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x1ea/0x1ea
>
> Hm. If I read this correctly, we see following scenario:
>
> - khugepaged tries to swap in a page under mmap_sem and anon_vma lock;
> - do_swap_page() calls swapin_readahead() with GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE;
> - __read_swap_cache_async() tries to allocate the page for swap in;
> - lockdep_trace_alloc() in __alloc_pages_nodemask() notices that with
> given gfp_mask we could end up in direct relaim.
> - Lockdep already knows that reclaim sometimes (e.g. in case of
> split_huge_page()) wants to take anon_vma lock on its own.
>
> Therefore deadlock is possible.

Oh, thank you for working that out. As usual with a lockdep trace,
I knew it was telling me something important, but in a language I
just couldn't understand without spending much longer to decode it.
Yes, wrong to call do_swap_page() while holding anon_vma lock.

>
> I see two ways to fix this:
>
> - take anon_vma lock *after* __collapse_huge_page_swapin() in
> collapse_huge_page(): I don't really see why we need the lock
> during swapin;

Agreed.

> - respect FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT in do_swap_page(): add GFP_NOWAIT to
> gfp_mask for swapin_readahead() in this case.

Sounds like a good idea; though I have some reservations you're welcome
to ignore. Partly because it goes beyond what's actually needed here,
partly because there's going to be plenty of waiting while the swapin
is done, partly because I think such a change may better belong to a
larger effort, extending FAULT_FLAG_RETRY somehow to cover the memory
allocation as well as the I/O phase (but we might be hoping instead for
a deeper attack on mmap_sem which would make FAULT_FLAG_RETRY redundant).

And the down_write of mmap_sem here, across all of those (63? 511?)
swapins, worries me. Should the swapins be done higher up, under
just a down_read of mmap_sem (required to guard vma)? Or should
mmap_sem be dropped and retaken repeatedly, and the various things
(including vma itself) be checked repeatedly? I don't know.

Hugh

>
> I guess it could be beneficial to do both.
>
> Any comments?
>
> --
> Kirill A. Shutemov