Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 04:36:38 +0000
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        will@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, sashal@...nel.org, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
        chris@...is-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@...il.com,
        johannes.berg@...el.com, tj@...nel.org, tytso@....edu,
        willy@...radead.org, david@...morbit.com, amir73il@...il.com,
        bfields@...ldses.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        kernel-team@....com, linux-mm@...ck.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        mhocko@...nel.org, minchan@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
        vdavydov.dev@...il.com, sj@...nel.org, jglisse@...hat.com,
        dennis@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com, penberg@...nel.org,
        rientjes@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, ngupta@...are.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, paolo.valente@...aro.org,
        josef@...icpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, jack@...e.com,
        jlayton@...nel.org, dan.j.williams@...el.com, hch@...radead.org,
        djwong@...nel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        airlied@...ux.ie, rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com,
        melissa.srw@...il.com, hamohammed.sa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/21] DEPT(Dependency Tracker)

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 06:56:39PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> I didn't want to bother you so I was planning to send the next spin
> after making more progress. However, PATCH v2 reports too many false
> positives because Dept tracked the bit_wait_table[] wrong way - I
> apologize for that. So I decided to send PATCH v3 first before going
> further for those who want to run Dept for now.
> 
> There might still be some false positives but not overwhelming.
>

Hello Byungchul, I'm running DEPT v3 on my system
and I see report below.

Looking at the kmemleak code and comment, I think
kmemleak tried to avoid lockdep recursive warning
but detected by DEPT?

===================================================
DEPT: Circular dependency has been detected.
5.17.0-rc1+ #1 Tainted: G        W
---------------------------------------------------
summary
---------------------------------------------------
*** AA DEADLOCK ***

context A
    [S] __raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock:0)
    [W] _raw_spin_lock_nested(&object->lock:0)
    [E] spin_unlock(&object->lock:0)

[S]: start of the event context
[W]: the wait blocked
[E]: the event not reachable
---------------------------------------------------
context A's detail
---------------------------------------------------
context A
    [S] __raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock:0)
    [W] _raw_spin_lock_nested(&object->lock:0)
    [E] spin_unlock(&object->lock:0)

[S] __raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&object->lock:0):
[<ffffffc00810302c>] scan_gray_list+0x84/0x13c
stacktrace:
      dept_ecxt_enter+0x88/0xf4
      _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0xf0/0x1c4
      scan_gray_list+0x84/0x13c
      kmemleak_scan+0x2d8/0x54c
      kmemleak_scan_thread+0xac/0xd4
      kthread+0xd4/0xe4
      ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20

[E] spin_unlock(&object->lock:0):
[<ffffffc008102ee0>] scan_block+0x60/0x128
---------------------------------------------------
information that might be helpful
---------------------------------------------------
CPU: 1 PID: 38 Comm: kmemleak Tainted: G        W         5.17.0-rc1+ #1
Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
Call trace:
 dump_backtrace.part.0+0x9c/0xc4
 show_stack+0x14/0x28
 dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xcc
 dump_stack+0x14/0x2c
 print_circle+0x2d4/0x438
 cb_check_dl+0x44/0x70
 bfs+0x60/0x168
 add_dep+0x88/0x11c
 add_wait+0x2d0/0x2dc
 __dept_wait+0x8c/0xa4
 dept_wait+0x6c/0x88
 _raw_spin_lock_nested+0xa8/0x1b0
 scan_block+0xb4/0x128
 scan_gray_list+0xc4/0x13c
 kmemleak_scan+0x2d8/0x54c
 kmemleak_scan_thread+0xac/0xd4
 kthread+0xd4/0xe4
 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20

> ---
> 
> Hi Linus and folks,
> 
> I've been developing a tool for detecting deadlock possibilities by
> tracking wait/event rather than lock(?) acquisition order to try to
> cover all synchonization machanisms. It's done on v5.17-rc1 tag.
> 
> https://github.com/lgebyungchulpark/linux-dept/commits/dept1.14_on_v5.17-rc1
>
[...]
> Benifit:
> 
> 	0. Works with all lock primitives.
> 	1. Works with wait_for_completion()/complete().
> 	2. Works with 'wait' on PG_locked.
> 	3. Works with 'wait' on PG_writeback.
> 	4. Works with swait/wakeup.
> 	5. Works with waitqueue.
> 	6. Multiple reports are allowed.
> 	7. Deduplication control on multiple reports.
> 	8. Withstand false positives thanks to 6.
> 	9. Easy to tag any wait/event.
> 
> Future work:
> 
> 	0. To make it more stable.
> 	1. To separates Dept from Lockdep.
> 	2. To improves performance in terms of time and space.
> 	3. To use Dept as a dependency engine for Lockdep.
> 	4. To add any missing tags of wait/event in the kernel.
> 	5. To deduplicate stack trace.
> 
> How to interpret reports:
> 
> 	1. E(event) in each context cannot be triggered because of the
> 	   W(wait) that cannot be woken.
> 	2. The stack trace helping find the problematic code is located
> 	   in each conext's detail.
> 
> Thanks,
> Byungchul
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes from v2:
> 
> 	1. Disable Dept on bit_wait_table[] in sched/wait_bit.c
> 	   reporting a lot of false positives, which is my fault.
> 	   Wait/event for bit_wait_table[] should've been tagged in a
> 	   higher layer for better work, which is a future work.
> 	   (feedback from Jan Kara)
> 	2. Disable Dept on crypto_larval's completion to prevent a false
> 	   positive.
> 
> Changes from v1:
> 
> 	1. Fix coding style and typo. (feedback from Steven)
> 	2. Distinguish each work context from another in workqueue.
> 	3. Skip checking lock acquisition with nest_lock, which is about
> 	   correct lock usage that should be checked by Lockdep.
> 
> Changes from RFC:
> 
> 	1. Prevent adding a wait tag at prepare_to_wait() but __schedule().
> 	   (feedback from Linus and Matthew)
> 	2. Use try version at lockdep_acquire_cpus_lock() annotation.
> 	3. Distinguish each syscall context from another.
[ ... ] 

-- 
Thank you, You are awesome!
Hyeonggon :-)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists