Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1220402 > unrolled thread

Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-09-07 23:10 +0200
    Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2015-09-08 12:50 +0200
      Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-09-09 00:10 +0200

#1220402 — Re: Possible deadlock related to CPU hotplug and kernfs

On Monday, September 07, 2015 11:11:19 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> On 2015/9/4 22:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> On 2015/9/4 4:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> Hi Tejun,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hello, Rafael.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:58:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>>>> So acpi_device_hotplug() calls lock_device_hotplug() which simply
> >>>>> acquires device_hotplug_lock.  It is held throughout the entire
> >>>>> hot-add/hot-remove code path.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Witing anything to /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/online goes through
> >>>>> online_store() in drivers/base/core.c and that does
> >>>>> lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() which then attempts to acquire
> >>>>> device_hotplug_lock using mutex_trylock().  And it only calls
> >>>>> either device_online() or device_offline() if it ends up with the
> >>>>> lock held.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quite frankly, I don't see how these particular two code paths can
> >>>>> deadlock in any way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So either a third code path is involved which is not executed
> >>>>> under device_hotplug_lock, or lockdep needs to be told to actually
> >>>>> take device_hotplug_lock into account in this case IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm... all sysfs rw functions are protected from removal.  ie. by
> >>>> default, removal of a sysfs file drains in-flight rw operations, so
> >>>> the hot plug path grabs a lock and then tries to remove a file and
> >>>> writing to the online file makes the file's write method to try to
> >>>> grab the same lock.  It deadlocks if the hotunplug path already has
> >>>> the lock and trying to drain the online file for removal.
> >>>
> >>> My point is that you cannot get into that situation.  If hotplug
> >>> already holds device_hotplug_lock, the write to "online" will end up
> >>> doing restart_syscall().
> >>>
> >>> If the "online" code path is holding the lock, hotplug cannot acquire
> >>> it and cannot proceed.
> >>>
> >>> Am I missing anything?
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >>         I think your are right. The lock_device_hotplug_sysfs() has
> >> already provided a solution for such a deadlock scenario. And there's
> >> another related code path at boot as:
> >> smp_init()
> >>         ->cpu_up()
> >>                 ->cpu_hotplug_begin()
> >>         So it seems to be a false alarm. Any way to teach lockdep
> >> about this to get rid of the false alarm?
> > 
> > Well, maybe we could call lock_device_hotplug() from that code path too?
> Hi Rafael,
> 	Adding lock_device_hotplug() to smp_init() doesn't solve the
> issue. So it seems to be an false alarm of lockdep, and I don't know
> how to get rid of such an lockdep false alarm:(

Peter, Ingo, some help from lockdep expert is needed.

We have a splat that almost certainly is a false positive (the original report
is here http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144109156901959&w=4) and no ideas
how to make it go away.  Can you please have a look and advise?

Rafael

--
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/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220689

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:33:21PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 07, 2015 11:11:19 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> Peter, Ingo, some help from lockdep expert is needed.
> 
> We have a splat that almost certainly is a false positive (the original report
> is here http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144109156901959&w=4) and no ideas
> how to make it go away.  Can you please have a look and advise?

I can't even find the relevant code :/

From that email I get kernfs_fop_write() which calls
kernfs_get_active(), but that does _NOT_ call cpu_up(), so that
callchain is shite.

The actual lockdep splat is also not really helpful, and is spraying
names over: acpi, device, sysfs and kernfs (do we really need that many
layeres of obfuscation for a simple file?)

So, please, start by explaining the thing proper such that simple people
like me know what to look for.
--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1221115

On Tuesday, September 08, 2015 12:40:08 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:33:21PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, September 07, 2015 11:11:19 AM Jiang Liu wrote:
> > Peter, Ingo, some help from lockdep expert is needed.
> > 
> > We have a splat that almost certainly is a false positive (the original report
> > is here http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=144109156901959&w=4) and no ideas
> > how to make it go away.  Can you please have a look and advise?
> 
> I can't even find the relevant code :/
> 
> From that email I get kernfs_fop_write() which calls
> kernfs_get_active(), but that does _NOT_ call cpu_up(), so that
> callchain is shite.
> 
> The actual lockdep splat is also not really helpful, and is spraying
> names over: acpi, device, sysfs and kernfs (do we really need that many
> layeres of obfuscation for a simple file?)
> 
> So, please, start by explaining the thing proper such that simple people
> like me know what to look for.

OK, I'll try to get that later this week.

Or maybe Jiang Liu can beat me to doing that. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web