From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
bhelgaas@google.com
Subject: Re: workqueue, pci: INFO: possible recursive locking detected
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:07:06 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ED51A2.6050909@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ED1D02.80205@cn.fujitsu.com>
On 07/22/2013 05:22 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 04:57 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/19/2013 07:17 AM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2013 04:23 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> kernel/workqueue.c | 6 ++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>> index f02c4a4..07d9a67 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>>>> @@ -4754,7 +4754,13 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
>>>> {
>>>> struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
>>>>
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>>>> + static struct lock_class_key __key;
>>>
>>> Sorry, this "static" should be removed.
>>>
>>
>> That didn't help either :-( Because it makes lockdep unhappy,
>> since the key isn't persistent.
>>
>> This is the patch I used:
>>
>> ---
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> index f02c4a4..7967e3b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
>> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
>> @@ -4754,7 +4754,13 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
>> {
>> struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>> + struct lock_class_key __key;
>> + INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
>> + lockdep_init_map(&wfc.work.lockdep_map, "&wfc.work", &__key, 0);
>> +#else
>> INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
>> +#endif
>> schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
>> flush_work(&wfc.work);
>> return wfc.ret;
>>
>>
>> And here are the new warnings:
>>
>>
>> Block layer SCSI generic (bsg) driver version 0.4 loaded (major 252)
>> io scheduler noop registered
>> io scheduler deadline registered
>> io scheduler cfq registered (default)
>> BUG: key ffff881039557b98 not in .data!
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 1 at kernel/lockdep.c:2987 lockdep_init_map+0x168/0x170()
>
> Sorry again.
>
> From 0096b9dac2282ec03d59a3f665b92977381a18ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:08:51 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] [PATCH] workqueue: allow the function of work_on_cpu() can
> call work_on_cpu()
>
> If the @fn call work_on_cpu() again, the lockdep will complain:
>
>> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> 3.11.0-rc1-lockdep-fix-a #6 Not tainted
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> kworker/0:1/142 is trying to acquire lock:
>> ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81077100>] flush_work+0x0/0xb0
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> ((&wfc.work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81075dd9>] process_one_work+0x169/0x610
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0
>> ----
>> lock((&wfc.work));
>> lock((&wfc.work));
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> It is false-positive lockdep report. In this sutiation,
> the two "wfc"s of the two work_on_cpu() are different,
> they are both on stack. flush_work() can't be deadlock.
>
> To fix this, we need to avoid the lockdep checking in this case,
> But we don't want to change the flush_work(), so we use
> completion instead of flush_work() in the work_on_cpu().
>
> Reported-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
That worked, thanks a lot!
Tested-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> kernel/workqueue.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index f02c4a4..b021a45 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -4731,6 +4731,7 @@ struct work_for_cpu {
> long (*fn)(void *);
> void *arg;
> long ret;
> + struct completion done;
> };
>
> static void work_for_cpu_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -4738,6 +4739,7 @@ static void work_for_cpu_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> struct work_for_cpu *wfc = container_of(work, struct work_for_cpu, work);
>
> wfc->ret = wfc->fn(wfc->arg);
> + complete(&wfc->done);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -4755,8 +4757,9 @@ long work_on_cpu(int cpu, long (*fn)(void *), void *arg)
> struct work_for_cpu wfc = { .fn = fn, .arg = arg };
>
> INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&wfc.work, work_for_cpu_fn);
> + init_completion(&wfc.done);
> schedule_work_on(cpu, &wfc.work);
> - flush_work(&wfc.work);
> + wait_for_completion(&wfc.done);
> return wfc.ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(work_on_cpu);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-22 15:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-16 14:41 workqueue, pci: INFO: possible recursive locking detected Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-07-17 10:07 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-18 20:23 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-07-19 1:47 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-19 8:57 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
2013-07-22 11:52 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-22 15:37 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat [this message]
2013-07-22 21:38 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2013-07-22 22:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2013-07-22 22:33 ` Alexander Duyck
2013-07-22 21:32 ` Tejun Heo
2013-07-23 1:23 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-23 14:38 ` Tejun Heo
2013-07-24 10:31 ` Lai Jiangshan
2013-07-24 16:25 ` [PATCH] workqueue: allow work_on_cpu() to be called recursively Tejun Heo
2013-07-27 17:11 ` Srivatsa S. Bhat
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=51ED51A2.6050909@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=laijs@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).