linux-kernel - Re: Incorrect circular locking dependency?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Aug 2009 17:59:52 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux filesystem caching discussion list 
	<linux-cachefs@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Subject: Re: Incorrect circular locking dependency?

On 08/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:37 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> > > =======================================================
> > > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > 2.6.30-test #7
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > swapper/0 is trying to acquire lock:
> > >  (&cwq->lock){-.-...}, at: [<c01519f3>] __queue_work+0x1f/0x4e
> > >
> > > but task is already holding lock:
> > >  (&q->lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<c012cc9c>] __wake_up+0x26/0x5c
> > >
> > > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > Okay.  I think I understand this:
> >
> >  (1) cachefiles_read_waiter() intercepts wake up events, and, as such, is run
> >      inside the waitqueue spinlock for the page bit waitqueue.
> >
> >  (2) cachefiles_read_waiter() calls fscache_enqueue_retrieval() which calls
> >      fscache_enqueue_operation() which calls schedule_work() for fast
> >      operations, thus taking a per-CPU workqueue spinlock.
> >
> >  (3) queue_work(), which is called by many things, calls __queue_work(), which
> >      takes the per-CPU workqueue spinlock.
> >
> >  (4) __queue_work() then calls insert_work(), which calls wake_up(), which
> >      takes the waitqueue spinlock for the per-CPU workqueue waitqueue.
> >
> > Even though the two waitqueues are separate, I think lockdep sees them as
> > having the same lock.
>
> Yeah, it looks like cwq->lock is always in the same lock class.
>
> Creating a new class for your second workqueue might help, we'd have to
> pass a second key through __create_workqueue_key() and pass that into
> init_cpu_workqueue() and apply it to cwq->lock using lockdep_set_class()
> and co.

Agreed.


But otoh, it would be nice to kill cwq->more_work and speedup workqueues
a bit. We don't actually need wait_queue_head_t, we have a single thread
cwq->thread which should be woken.  However this change is not completely
trivial, we need cwq->please_wakeup_me to avoid unnecessary wakeups inside
run_workqueue(). Not sure this worth the trouble.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/