Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1576064
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone |
| Date | 2017-02-07 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t8ll7-86g-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <t6mEG-2zZ-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6JUC-QC-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6Nvb-2PE-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <t7syl-6ab-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <t7OSe-3KY-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon 06-02-17 11:39:18, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Sun 05-02-17 19:43:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I got same warning with ext4. Maybe we need to check carefully.
> >
> > [ 511.215743] =====================================================
> > [ 511.218003] WARNING: RECLAIM_FS-safe -> RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock order detected
> > [ 511.220031] 4.10.0-rc6-next-20170202+ #500 Not tainted
> > [ 511.221689] -----------------------------------------------------
> > [ 511.223579] a.out/49302 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] is trying to acquire:
> > [ 511.225533] (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff810a1477>] get_online_cpus+0x37/0x80
> > [ 511.227795]
> > [ 511.227795] and this task is already holding:
> > [ 511.230082] (jbd2_handle){++++-.}, at: [<ffffffff813a8be7>] start_this_handle+0x1a7/0x590
> > [ 511.232592] which would create a new lock dependency:
> > [ 511.234192] (jbd2_handle){++++-.} -> (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}
> > [ 511.235966]
> > [ 511.235966] but this new dependency connects a RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe lock:
> > [ 511.238563] (jbd2_handle){++++-.}
> > [ 511.238564]
> > [ 511.238564] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-safe at:
> > [ 511.242078]
> > [ 511.242084] [<ffffffff811089db>] __lock_acquire+0x34b/0x1640
> > [ 511.244495] [<ffffffff8110a119>] lock_acquire+0xc9/0x250
> > [ 511.246697] [<ffffffff813b3525>] jbd2_log_wait_commit+0x55/0x1d0
> [...]
> > [ 511.276216] to a RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe lock:
> > [ 511.278128] (cpu_hotplug.dep_map){++++++}
> > [ 511.278130]
> > [ 511.278130] ... which became RECLAIM_FS-irq-unsafe at:
> > [ 511.281809] ...
> > [ 511.281811]
> > [ 511.282598] [<ffffffff81108141>] mark_held_locks+0x71/0x90
> > [ 511.284854] [<ffffffff8110ab6f>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x6f/0xd0
> > [ 511.287218] [<ffffffff812744c8>] kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace+0x48/0x3b0
> > [ 511.289755] [<ffffffff810cfa65>] __smpboot_create_thread.part.2+0x35/0xf0
> > [ 511.292329] [<ffffffff810d0026>] smpboot_create_threads+0x66/0x90
> [...]
> > [ 511.317867] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 511.317867]
> > [ 511.320920] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 511.320920]
> > [ 511.323218] CPU0 CPU1
> > [ 511.324622] ---- ----
> > [ 511.325973] lock(cpu_hotplug.dep_map);
> > [ 511.327246] local_irq_disable();
> > [ 511.328870] lock(jbd2_handle);
> > [ 511.330483] lock(cpu_hotplug.dep_map);
> > [ 511.332259] <Interrupt>
> > [ 511.333187] lock(jbd2_handle);
>
> Peter, is there any way how to tell the lockdep that this is in fact
> reclaim safe? The direct reclaim only does the trylock and backs off so
> we cannot deadlock here.
>
> Or am I misinterpreting the trace?
This is moot - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170207201950.20482-1-mhocko@kernel.org
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-02 11:20 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-02-03 12:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-03 15:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-03 16:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2017-02-03 18:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-02-06 07:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2017-02-06 15:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-06 15:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2017-02-06 16:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-02-07 11:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> - 2017-02-07 18:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-03 16:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> - 2017-02-05 11:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-06 11:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-07 22:20 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-08 10:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm, vmscan: account the number of isolated pages per zone Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-02-06 11:40 +0100
csiph-web