Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:16a7:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id gp39csp762141pxb; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:46:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxEMD7z79DuGB7Bb/XeFhwosabqgdlcRTGrL0yg7sgX27ofwfrl5NiSL/gIh2RwYJQUdUML X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5f8d:: with SMTP id a13mr7831299eju.194.1604432799397; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:46:39 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1604432799; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=K/LG02FZfg7MTwAsknVROML7Y+4HaH1V45AzcSlrgUdUiC3W8mhWEwDdoHmoo5mhiG bEPz5DtmRN/SKjcC7Yx08Gu3qbWWu7uv5tWkZOya7Wi4nOARFNqYpEWHdJPkhRdTXKFp qb1zokytn8sDb0l1lktBkzvFGBvQidBwn4TgxOg5vEq0dMrMiYnOdE4dh6inMSNUwQcH GVcf5STKwZ11LJ/nABA+htdyhkMqZKqTk9iICgahebDK0AyZ5QoRWJMEo9RaGOCFuXaa f7RkZJBd93X3hlX2ZaKDko9inNXSzu46jRM4vO2za/+thNoIrMsLS3qHaWVDmuX9AFg6 ADfA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject:dkim-signature; bh=AKXcPJG+eRfxGQcigkaenLv+wrvYFwDRTyyh/72qkIk=; b=vzaDI88dF4aOp/bU0ZouCVkgEbsJj4kpAnXmrML05rdg0lI2WeC2++r/8EAWlTinAA nDhI+UuNNpcRuuvPjIOdmEuFke2B+VcaZsFIPFDebjGIi9mlk64MBXqyC6VgvAGBGZci wzPVZqchQecbvJy9D8+UlqOeNf3jVjLwmWC5qsv+4O/CSwHIOXUyqQD0IFqyYHQU2qNo 05NI8ebVlxaKxRprqQG2doEpBMCN2L/0R3AM4NHjPzbXXx1DDS8X3vjARxv9L87dtVY+ 4GYrZf36GE9gcpkttTYOXb15R+DBE3iB96jrxH152gl6Kct6XDtZy4UIHT5XfinJd9tp I4gw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=jK7yr701; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n10si5956820ejr.7.2020.11.03.11.46.16; Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:46:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=jK7yr701; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729606AbgKCToc (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:44:32 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49816 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729552AbgKCToc (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 14:44:32 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1604432670; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AKXcPJG+eRfxGQcigkaenLv+wrvYFwDRTyyh/72qkIk=; b=jK7yr701ICHUOikg9zKEXtUC97C8jeZA5SbownIZMXpSSdNAbQxL0FnB/soCxBwyAbGSBT S0K5DtCZ/tyToy0mfrPiSW8b9dXqPtNtKjofDJsWacvue52sGtnDjDfugr+cjX+kC9LPzP WreaTpWyLzkji0m/4Br42qJSKBUkUC0= Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E92AF84; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: possible lockdep regression introduced by 4d004099a668 ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion") To: Boqun Feng Cc: LKML , peterz@infradead.org, Jan Kara , David Sterba , Nikolay Borisov References: <20201103140828.GA2713762@boqun-archlinux> From: Filipe Manana Message-ID: <283e8f43-91d1-7a19-ed9a-ac6cd13d41ce@suse.com> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 19:44:29 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201103140828.GA2713762@boqun-archlinux> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/11/20 14:08, Boqun Feng wrote: > Hi Filipe, > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:26:49AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I've recently started to hit a warning followed by tasks hanging after >> attempts to freeze a filesystem. A git bisection pointed to the >> following commit: >> >> commit 4d004099a668c41522242aa146a38cc4eb59cb1e >> Author: Peter Zijlstra >> Date: Fri Oct 2 11:04:21 2020 +0200 >> >> lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion >> >> This happens very reliably when running all xfstests with lockdep >> enabled, and the tested filesystem is btrfs (haven't tried other >> filesystems, but it shouldn't matter). The warning and task hangs always >> happen at either test generic/068 or test generic/390, and (oddly) >> always have to run all tests for it to trigger, running those tests >> individually on an infinite loop doesn't seem to trigger it (at least >> for a couple hours). >> >> The warning triggered is at fs/super.c:__sb_start_write() which always >> results later in several tasks hanging on a percpu rw_sem: >> >> https://pastebin.com/qnLvf94E >> > > In your dmesg, I see line: > > [ 9304.920151] INFO: lockdep is turned off. > > , that means debug_locks is 0, that usually happens when lockdep find a > problem (i.e. a deadlock) and it turns itself off, because a problem is > found and it's pointless for lockdep to continue to run. > > And I haven't found a lockdep splat in your dmesg, do you have a full > dmesg so that I can have a look? > > This may be relevant because in commit 4d004099a66, we have > > @@ -5056,13 +5081,13 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read) > unsigned long flags; > int ret = 0; > > - if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion)) > + if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled())) > return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */ > > before this commit lock_is_held_type() and its friends may return false > if debug_locks==0, after this commit lock_is_held_type() and its friends > will always return true if debug_locks == 0. That could cause the > behavior here. > > In case I'm correct, the following "fix" may be helpful. > > Regards, > Boqun > > ----------8 > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > index 3e99dfef8408..c0e27fb949ff 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > @@ -5471,7 +5464,7 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read) > unsigned long flags; > int ret = 0; > > - if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled())) > + if (unlikely(debug_locks && !lockdep_enabled())) > return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */ > > raw_local_irq_save(flags); Boqun, the patch fixes the problem for me! You can have Tested-by: Filipe Manana Thanks! > > > >> What happens is percpu_rwsem_is_held() is apparently returning a false >> positive, so this makes __sb_start_write() do a >> percpu_down_read_trylock() on a percpu_rw_sem at a higher level, which >> is expected to always succeed, because if the calling task is holding a >> freeze percpu_rw_sem at level 1, it's supposed to be able to try_lock >> the semaphore at level 2, since the freeze semaphores are always >> acquired by increasing level order. >> >> But the try_lock fails, it triggers the warning at __sb_start_write(), >> then its caller sb_start_pagefault() ignores the return value and >> callers such as btrfs_page_mkwrite() make the assumption the freeze >> semaphore was taken, proceed to do their stuff, and later call >> sb_end_pagefault(), which which will do an up_read() on the percpu_rwsem >> at level 2 despite not having not been able to down_read() the >> semaphore. This obviously corrupts the semaphore's read_count state, and >> later causes any task trying to down_write() it to hang forever. >> >> After such a hang I ran a drgn script to confirm it: >> >> $ cat dump_freeze_sems.py >> import sys >> import drgn >> from drgn import NULL, Object, cast, container_of, execscript, \ >> reinterpret, sizeof >> from drgn.helpers.linux import * >> >> mnt_path = b'/home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1' >> >> mnt = None >> for mnt in for_each_mount(prog, dst = mnt_path): >> pass >> >> if mnt is None: >> sys.stderr.write(f'Error: mount point {mnt_path} not found\n') >> sys.exit(1) >> >> def dump_sem(level_enum): >> level = level_enum.value_() >> sem = mnt.mnt.mnt_sb.s_writers.rw_sem[level - 1] >> print(f'freeze semaphore at level {level}, {str(level_enum)}') >> print(f' block {sem.block.counter.value_()}') >> for i in for_each_possible_cpu(prog): >> read_count = per_cpu_ptr(sem.read_count, i) >> print(f' read_count at cpu {i} = {read_count}') >> print() >> >> # dump semaphore read counts for all freeze levels (fs.h) >> dump_sem(prog['SB_FREEZE_WRITE']) >> dump_sem(prog['SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT']) >> dump_sem(prog['SB_FREEZE_FS']) >> >> >> $ drgn dump_freeze_sems.py >> freeze semaphore at level 1, (enum )SB_FREEZE_WRITE >> block 1 >> read_count at cpu 0 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3ee00c74 = 3 >> read_count at cpu 1 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f200c74 = 4294967293 >> read_count at cpu 2 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f600c74 = 3 >> read_count at cpu 3 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3fa00c74 = 4294967293 >> >> freeze semaphore at level 2, (enum )SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT >> block 1 >> read_count at cpu 0 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3ee00c78 = 0 >> read_count at cpu 1 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f200c78 = 4294967295 >> read_count at cpu 2 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f600c78 = 0 >> read_count at cpu 3 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3fa00c78 = 0 >> >> freeze semaphore at level 3, (enum )SB_FREEZE_FS >> block 0 >> read_count at cpu 0 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3ee00c7c = 0 >> read_count at cpu 1 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f200c7c = 0 >> read_count at cpu 2 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f600c7c = 0 >> read_count at cpu 3 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3fa00c7c = 0 >> >> At levels 1 and 3, read_count sums to 0, so it's fine, but at level 2 it >> sums to -1. The system remains like that for hours at least, with no >> progress at all. >> >> Is there a known regression with that lockdep commit? >> Anything I can do to help debug it in case it's not obvious? >> >> Thanks. >