From db751fe3ea6880ff5ac5abe60cb7b80deb5a4140 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Stultz Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:52:00 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] cpuset: Fix potential deadlock w/ set_mems_allowed After adding lockdep support to seqlock/seqcount structures, I started seeing the following warning: [ 1.070907] ====================================================== [ 1.072015] [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ] [ 1.073181] 3.11.0+ #67 Not tainted [ 1.073801] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 1.074882] kworker/u4:2/708 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 1.076088] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}, at: [] new_slab+0x5f/0x280 [ 1.077572] [ 1.077572] and this task is already holding: [ 1.078593] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [] blk_execute_rq_nowait+0x53/0xf0 [ 1.080042] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 1.080042] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...} [ 1.080042] [ 1.080042] but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock: [ 1.080042] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} [ 1.080042] ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-safe at: [ 1.080042] [] __lock_acquire+0x5b9/0x1db0 [ 1.080042] [] lock_acquire+0x95/0x130 [ 1.080042] [] _raw_spin_lock+0x41/0x80 [ 1.080042] [] scsi_device_unbusy+0x7e/0xd0 [ 1.080042] [] scsi_finish_command+0x32/0xf0 [ 1.080042] [] scsi_softirq_done+0xa1/0x130 [ 1.080042] [] blk_done_softirq+0x73/0x90 [ 1.080042] [] __do_softirq+0x110/0x2f0 [ 1.080042] [] run_ksoftirqd+0x2d/0x60 [ 1.080042] [] smpboot_thread_fn+0x156/0x1e0 [ 1.080042] [] kthread+0xd6/0xe0 [ 1.080042] [] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 1.080042] [ 1.080042] to a SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 1.080042] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...} [ 1.080042] ... which became SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe at: [ 1.080042] ... [] __lock_acquire+0x613/0x1db0 [ 1.080042] [] lock_acquire+0x95/0x130 [ 1.080042] [] kthreadd+0x82/0x180 [ 1.080042] [] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 1.080042] [ 1.080042] other info that might help us debug this: [ 1.080042] [ 1.080042] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario: [ 1.080042] [ 1.080042] CPU0 CPU1 [ 1.080042] ---- ---- [ 1.080042] lock(&p->mems_allowed_seq); [ 1.080042] local_irq_disable(); [ 1.080042] lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock); [ 1.080042] lock(&p->mems_allowed_seq); [ 1.080042] [ 1.080042] lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock); [ 1.080042] [ 1.080042] *** DEADLOCK *** The issue stems from the kthreadd() function calling set_mems_allowed with irqs enabled. While its possibly unlikely for the actual deadlock to trigger, a fix is fairly simple: disable irqs before taking the mems_allowed_seq lock. Signed-off-by: John Stultz Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Acked-by: Li Zefan Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: Steven Rostedt Cc: "David S. Miller" Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1381186321-4906-4-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- include/linux/cpuset.h | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h index cc1b01c..3fe661f 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h @@ -110,10 +110,14 @@ static inline bool put_mems_allowed(unsigned int seq) static inline void set_mems_allowed(nodemask_t nodemask) { + unsigned long flags; + task_lock(current); + local_irq_save(flags); write_seqcount_begin(¤t->mems_allowed_seq); current->mems_allowed = nodemask; write_seqcount_end(¤t->mems_allowed_seq); + local_irq_restore(flags); task_unlock(current); } -- 2.7.4