linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:27:02 -0500
From:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc:	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging

On Fri, Mar 04 2011 at  4:50pm -0500,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com> wrote:

> On 2011-03-04 22:43, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04 2011 at  8:02am -0500,
> > Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> 2011/3/4 Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>:
> >>> I'm now hitting a lockdep issue, while running a 'for-2.6.39/stack-plug'
> >>> kernel, when I try an fsync heavy workload to a request-based mpath
> >>> device (the kernel ultimately goes down in flames, I've yet to look at
> >>> the crashdump I took)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> =======================================================
> >>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> >>> 2.6.38-rc6-snitm+ #2
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ffsb/3110 is trying to acquire lock:
> >>>  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff811b4c4d>] flush_plug_list+0xbc/0x135
> >>>
> >>> but task is already holding lock:
> >>>  (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8137132f>] schedule+0x16a/0x725
> >>>
> >>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >> I hit this too. Can you check if attached debug patch fixes it?
> > 
> > Fixes it for me.
> 
> The preempt bit in block/ should not be needed. Can you check whether
> it's the moving of the flush in sched.c that does the trick?

It works if I leave out the blk-core.c preempt change too.

> The problem with the current spot is that it's under the runqueue lock.
> The problem with the modified variant is that we flush even if the task
> is not going to sleep. We really just want to flush when it is going to
> move out of the runqueue, but we want to do that outside of the runqueue
> lock as well.

OK. So we still need a proper fix for this issue.
--
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/