Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756858Ab0DNVK6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:10:58 -0400
Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.44.51]:31550 "EHLO
	smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755749Ab0DNVK4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:10:56 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:
	cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-system-of-record;
	b=AazZ42EQ+UeMh80Gd9HKnl75Ut8usjm+6jsweGAb5eiFyYTm/635JkMN39C35wJEO
	cIG1jRx1MgvD2vJYDvtDQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20100414202347.GA26791@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20100414202347.GA26791@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:10:51 -0700
Message-ID: <z2m6599ad831004141410tdc40feb0h529dabe4a39d67d5@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lockdep splat in cpuset code acquiring alloc_lock
From: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
       lizf@cn.fujitsu.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-System-Of-Record: true
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3992
Lines: 81

Looks like select_fallback_rq() shouldn't be calling
cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked(), which does a task_lock(), which isn't
IRQ safe. Also, according to its comments that should only be held
with the cpuset callback_mutex held, which seems unlikely from a
softirq handler.

Also, calling cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked(p, &p->cpus_allowed) stomps
on state in p without (AFAICS) synchronization.

The description of commit e76bd8d9850c2296a7e8e24c9dce9b5e6b55fe2f
includes the phrase " I'm fairly sure this works, but there might be a
deadlock hiding" although I think that the lockdep-reported problem is
different than what Rusty had in mind.

Paul

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I hit the following lockdep splat on one of many runs. ?Thoughts?
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Thanx, Paul
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =================================
> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> 2.6.34-rc3-autokern1 #1
> ---------------------------------
> inconsistent {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-SOFTIRQ-W} usage.
> swapper/0 [HC0[0]:SC1[1]:HE0:SE0] takes:
> ?(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock){+.?...}, at: [<c0000000000affd4>] .cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked+0x2c/0xbc
> {SOFTIRQ-ON-W} state was registered at:
> ?[<c000000000097ca8>] .lock_acquire+0x5c/0x88
> ?[<c000000000570270>] ._raw_spin_lock+0x48/0x70
> ?[<c000000000126cec>] .set_task_comm+0x34/0x9c
> ?[<c0000000000802f0>] .kthreadd+0x30/0x160
> ?[<c000000000026c90>] .kernel_thread+0x54/0x70
> irq event stamp: 782497
> hardirqs last ?enabled at (782496): [<c000000000570ebc>] ._raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x38/0x80
> hardirqs last disabled at (782497): [<c000000000050fb4>] .task_rq_lock+0x74/0x130
> softirqs last ?enabled at (782478): [<c000000000026acc>] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24
> softirqs last disabled at (782493): [<c000000000026acc>] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 2 locks held by swapper/0:
> ?#0: ?(&timer){+.-.-.}, at: [<c0000000000712a0>] .run_timer_softirq+0x138/0x298
> ?#1: ?(rcu_read_lock){.+.+..}, at: [<c000000000054180>] .select_fallback_rq+0xe8/0x1c4
>
> stack backtrace:
> Call Trace:
> [c00000000ffff740] [c000000000010168] .show_stack+0x70/0x184 (unreliable)
> [c00000000ffff7f0] [c0000000000933b8] .print_usage_bug+0x1d4/0x208
> [c00000000ffff8b0] [c000000000093778] .mark_lock+0x38c/0x6f4
> [c00000000ffff960] [c00000000009696c] .__lock_acquire+0x6ac/0x96c
> [c00000000ffffa60] [c000000000097ca8] .lock_acquire+0x5c/0x88
> [c00000000ffffb00] [c000000000570270] ._raw_spin_lock+0x48/0x70
> [c00000000ffffb90] [c0000000000affd4] .cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked+0x2c/0xbc
> [c00000000ffffc20] [c0000000000541bc] .select_fallback_rq+0x124/0x1c4
> [c00000000ffffcd0] [c00000000005ee44] .try_to_wake_up+0x1ac/0x3b4
> [c00000000ffffd80] [c000000000071910] .process_timeout+0x10/0x24
> [c00000000ffffdf0] [c000000000071348] .run_timer_softirq+0x1e0/0x298
> [c00000000ffffed0] [c00000000006a440] .__do_softirq+0x158/0x254
> [c00000000fffff90] [c000000000026acc] .call_do_softirq+0x14/0x24
> [c00000000095b8f0] [c00000000000cd34] .do_softirq+0xb0/0x138
> [c00000000095b990] [c00000000006a680] .irq_exit+0x88/0x100
> [c00000000095ba20] [c0000000000243a8] .timer_interrupt+0x150/0x19c
> [c00000000095bad0] [c000000000003704] decrementer_common+0x104/0x180
> --- Exception: 901 at .raw_local_irq_restore+0x6c/0x80
> ? ?LR = .cpu_idle+0x138/0x20c
> [c00000000095bdc0] [0000000000253400] 0x253400 (unreliable)
> [c00000000095be40] [c0000000000129e8] .cpu_idle+0x138/0x20c
> [c00000000095bed0] [c00000000057a844] .start_secondary+0x3c4/0x404
> [c00000000095bf90] [c000000000008264] .start_secondary_prolog+0x10/0x14
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/