From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:42:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1fx57zbyl.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100210230625.GB678@suse.de> (Greg KH's message of "Wed\, 10 Feb 2010 15\:06\:25 -0800")
Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:09:33PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I've just spent a while sorting out some lockdep complaints triggered
>> by the recent addition of the "s_active" lockdep annotation in sysfs
>> (commit 846f99749ab68bbc7f75c74fec305de675b1a1bf)
>>
>> Some of them are genuine and I have submitted a fix for those.
>> Some are, I think, debatable and I get to that is a minute. I've
>> submitted a fix for them anyway.
>> But some are to my mind clearly bogus and I'm hoping that can be
>> fixed by the change below (or similar).
>> The 'bogus' ones are triggered by writing to a sysfs attribute file
>> for which the handler tries to delete a symlink from sysfs.
>> This appears to be a recursion on s_active as s_active is held while
>> the handler runs and is again needed to effect the delete. However
>> as the thing being deleted is a symlink, it is very clearly a
>> different object to the thing triggering the delete, so there is no
>> real loop.
>>
>> The following patch splits the lockdep context in two - one for
>> symlink and one for everything else. This removes the apparent loop.
>> (An example report can be seen in
>> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15142).
>>
>> The "debatable" dependency loops happen when writing to one attribute
>> causes a different attribute to be deleted. In my (md) case this can
>> actually cause a deadlock as both the attributes take the same lock
>> while the handler is running. This is because deleting the attribute
>> will block until the all accesses of that attribute have completed (I
>> think).
>> However it should be possible to delete a name from sysfs while there
>> are still accesses pending (it works for normal files!!). So if
>> sysfs could be changed to simply unlink the file and leave deletion to
>> happen when the refcount become zero it would certainly make my life
>> a lot easier, and allow the removal of some ugly code from md.c.
>> I don't know sysfs well enough to suggest a patch though.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> NeilBrown
>>
>>
>>
>> commit 2e502cfe444b68f6ef6b8b2abe83b6112564095b
>> Author: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
>> Date: Wed Feb 10 09:43:45 2010 +1100
>>
>> sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links for sysfs
>>
>> symlinks and non-symlink is sysfs are very different.
>> A symlink can never be locked (active) while an attribute
>> modification routine is running. So removing symlink from an
>> attribute 'store' routine should be permitted without any lockdep
>> warnings.
>>
>> So split the lockdep context for 's_active' in two, one for symlinks
>> and other for everything else.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
>
> Nice patch, I'll queue it up for .34.
Note the patch does not compile with lockdep disabled.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-11 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-10 1:09 [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links Neil Brown
2010-02-10 1:21 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10 1:56 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10 3:05 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10 3:14 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10 3:19 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-10 3:33 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10 2:08 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10 2:19 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-10 3:12 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-10 8:03 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 10:39 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-10 18:25 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 23:05 ` Greg KH
2010-02-11 1:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 2:10 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-11 18:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12 0:59 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-12 1:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12 1:20 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12 2:16 ` Tejun Heo
2010-02-11 23:13 ` [PATCH 0/4] Better sysfs lockdep Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:14 ` [PATCH 1/4] sysfs: Remove sysfs_get/put_active_two Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:20 ` [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Only take active references on attributes Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:21 ` [PATCH 3/4] sysfs: Use one lockdep class per sysfs attribute Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:23 ` [PATCH 4/4] sysfs: Use sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init on dynamic attributes Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:42 ` Greg KH
2010-02-12 12:47 ` [PATCH] sysfs: Document sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-12 21:41 ` [PATCH] sysfs: Use sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init on module dynamic attributes Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-15 10:38 ` [PATCH 4/4] sysfs: Use sysfs_attr_init and sysfs_bin_attr_init on " Américo Wang
2010-02-15 12:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-15 10:35 ` [PATCH 3/4] sysfs: Use one lockdep class per sysfs attribute Américo Wang
2010-02-15 7:27 ` [PATCH 2/4] sysfs: Only take active references on attributes Américo Wang
2010-02-15 8:15 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-15 8:31 ` Américo Wang
2010-02-15 10:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-15 7:03 ` [PATCH 1/4] sysfs: Remove sysfs_get/put_active_two Américo Wang
2010-02-11 23:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:17 ` [PATCH 0/4] Better sysfs lockdep Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-11 23:43 ` Greg KH
2010-02-10 23:54 ` [PATCH] sysfs: differentiate between locking links and non-links Tejun Heo
2010-02-11 0:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 17:36 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-10 17:55 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2010-02-10 23:06 ` Greg KH
2010-02-11 21:42 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2010-02-11 22:32 ` Greg KH
2010-02-11 22:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-17 22:38 ` Greg KH
2010-02-18 0:39 ` Neil Brown
2010-02-18 1:01 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-18 1:12 ` 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=m1fx57zbyl.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--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