Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:37:35 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        peterz@infradead.org, walken@google.com, kirill@shutemov.name,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, willy@infradead.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/14] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature
Message-ID: <20170816063735.GS20323@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1502089981-21272-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170815082020.fvfahxwx2zt4ps4i@gmail.com>
 <20170816001637.GN20323@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170816035842.p33z5st3rr2gwssh@tardis>
 <20170816043746.GQ20323@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170816054051.GA11771@tardis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170816054051.GA11771@tardis>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4269
Lines: 108

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:40:51PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > Worker A : acquired of wfc.work -> wait for cpu_hotplug_lock to be released
> > > > Task   B : acquired of cpu_hotplug_lock -> wait for lock#3 to be released
> > > > Task   C : acquired of lock#3 -> wait for completion of barr->done
> > > 
> > > >From the stack trace below, this barr->done is for flush_work() in
> > > lru_add_drain_all_cpuslocked(), i.e. for work "per_cpu(lru_add_drain_work)"
> > > 
> > > > Worker D : wait for wfc.work to be released -> will complete barr->done
> > > 
> > > and this barr->done is for work "wfc.work".
> > 
> > I think it can be the same instance. wait_for_completion() in flush_work()
> > e.g. at task C in my example, waits for completion which we expect to be
> > done by a worker e.g. worker D in my example.
> > 
> > I think the problem is caused by a write-acquisition of wfc.work in
> > process_one_work(). The acquisition of wfc.work should be reenterable,
> > that is, read-acquisition, shouldn't it?
> > 
> 
> The only thing is that wfc.work is not a real and please see code in
> flush_work(). And if a task C do a flush_work() for "wfc.work" with
> lock#3 held, it needs to "acquire" wfc.work before it
> wait_for_completion(), which is already a deadlock case:
> 
> 	lock#3 -> wfc.work -> cpu_hotplug_lock -+
>           ^                                     |
> 	  |                                     |
> 	  +-------------------------------------+
> 
> , without crossrelease enabled. So the task C didn't flush work wfc.work
> in the previous case, which implies barr->done in Task C and Worker D
> are not the same instance.
> 
> Make sense?

Thank you very much for your explanation. I misunderstood how flush_work()
works. Yes, it seems to be led by incorrect class of completion.

Thanks,
Byungchul

> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> > I might be wrong... Please fix me if so.
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > Byungchul
> > 
> > > So those two barr->done could not be the same instance, IIUC. Therefore
> > > the deadlock case is not possible.
> > > 
> > > The problem here is all barr->done instances are initialized at
> > > insert_wq_barrier() and they belongs to the same lock class, to fix
> > > this, we need to differ barr->done with different lock classes based on
> > > the corresponding works.
> > > 
> > > How about the this(only compilation test):
> > > 
> > > ----------------->8
> > > diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > index e86733a8b344..d14067942088 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > > @@ -2431,6 +2431,27 @@ struct wq_barrier {
> > >  	struct task_struct	*task;	/* purely informational */
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETE
> > > +# define INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(barr, func, target)				\
> > > +do {										\
> > > +	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&(barr)->work, func);					\
> > > +	__set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&(barr)->work));	\
> > > +	lockdep_init_map_crosslock((struct lockdep_map *)&(barr)->done.map,	\
> > > +				   "(complete)" #barr,				\
> > > +				   (target)->lockdep_map.key, 1); 		\
> > > +	__init_completion(&barr->done);						\
> > > +	barr->task = current;							\
> > > +} while (0)
> > > +#else
> > > +# define INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(barr, func, target)				\
> > > +do {										\
> > > +	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&(barr)->work, func);					\
> > > +	__set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&(barr)->work));	\
> > > +	init_completion(&barr->done);						\
> > > +	barr->task = current;							\
> > > +} while (0)
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >  static void wq_barrier_func(struct work_struct *work)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct wq_barrier *barr = container_of(work, struct wq_barrier, work);
> > > @@ -2474,10 +2495,7 @@ static void insert_wq_barrier(struct pool_workqueue *pwq,
> > >  	 * checks and call back into the fixup functions where we
> > >  	 * might deadlock.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	INIT_WORK_ONSTACK(&barr->work, wq_barrier_func);
> > > -	__set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, work_data_bits(&barr->work));
> > > -	init_completion(&barr->done);
> > > -	barr->task = current;
> > > +	INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(barr, wq_barrier_func, target);
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * If @target is currently being executed, schedule the