linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9

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, 29 May 2009 19:08:33 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	tytso@....edu, chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com,
	hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, richard@....demon.co.uk,
	damien.wyart@...e.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9

On Fri, May 29 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here's the 9th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v8:
>>
>> - Fix a bdi_work on-stack allocation hang. I hope this fixes Ted's
>>   issue.
>> - Get rid of the explicit wait queues, we can just use wake_up_process()
>>   since it's just for that one task.
>> - Add separate "sync_supers" thread that makes sure that the dirty
>>   super blocks get written. We cannot safely do this from bdi_forker_task(),
>>   as that risks deadlocking on ->s_umount. Artem, I implemented this
>>   by doing the wake ups from a timer so that it would be easier for you
>>   to just deactivate the timer when there are no super blocks.
>>
>> For ease of patching, I've put the full diff here:
>>
>>   http://kernel.dk/writeback-v9.patch
>>
>> and also stored this in a writeback-v9 branch that will not change,
>> you can pull that into Linus tree from here:
>>
>>   git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git writeback-v9
>
> I'm working with the above branch. Got the following twice.
> Not sure what triggers this, probably if I do nothing and
> cpufreq starts doing its magic, this is triggered.
>
> And I'm not sure it has something to do with your changes,
> it is just that I saw this only with your tree. Please,
> ignore if this is not relevant.

OK, doesn't look related, but if it only triggers with the writeback
patches, something fishy is going on. I'll check up on it.

>
> =======================================================
> scaling: [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.30-rc7-block-2.6 #1                                           
> -------------------------------------------------------           
> K99cpuspeed/9923 is trying to acquire lock:                       
> (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81051155>] 
> __cancel_work_timer+0xd9/0x21d
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0073aa8>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x23c/0x2cc [cpufreq_ondemand]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #2 (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}:
>       [<ffffffff81063529>] __lock_acquire+0xa63/0xbeb
>       [<ffffffff8106379f>] lock_acquire+0xee/0x112         
> [<ffffffff812f4eb0>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5a/0x419
>       [<ffffffff812f5309>] mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x35         
> [<ffffffffa00738f2>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x86/0x2cc [cpufreq_ondemand]
>       [<ffffffff8125eaa4>] __cpufreq_governor+0x84/0xc2                   
>          [<ffffffff8125ecae>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x195/0x211            
>             [<ffffffff8125f6fb>] store_scaling_governor+0x1e7/0x223       
>                [<ffffffff8126038f>] store+0x5f/0x83                       
>                   [<ffffffff81125107>] sysfs_write_file+0xe4/0x119        
>                      [<ffffffff810d24ae>] vfs_write+0xab/0x105            
>                         [<ffffffff810d25cc>] sys_write+0x47/0x70          
>                            [<ffffffff8100bc2b>] 
> system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b                          
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff                                
>
> -> #1 (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}:
>       [<ffffffff81063529>] __lock_acquire+0xa63/0xbeb
>       [<ffffffff8106379f>] lock_acquire+0xee/0x112         
> [<ffffffff812f5561>] down_write+0x3d/0x49            [<ffffffff8125fc31>] 
> lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x48/0x78
>       [<ffffffffa007364c>] do_dbs_timer+0x5f/0x27f [cpufreq_ondemand]
>       [<ffffffff81050869>] worker_thread+0x24b/0x367                      
>  [<ffffffff810547c1>] kthread+0x56/0x83                               
> [<ffffffff8100cd3a>] child_rip+0xa/0x20                              
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff                        
>
> -> #0 (&(&dbs_info->work)->work){+.+...}:
>       [<ffffffff8106341d>] __lock_acquire+0x957/0xbeb
>       [<ffffffff8106379f>] lock_acquire+0xee/0x112         
> [<ffffffff81051189>] __cancel_work_timer+0x10d/0x21d
>       [<ffffffff810512a6>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0xd/0xf
>       [<ffffffffa0073abb>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x24f/0x2cc [cpufreq_ondemand]
>       [<ffffffff8125eaa4>] __cpufreq_governor+0x84/0xc2                   
>           [<ffffffff8125ec98>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x17f/0x211           
>               [<ffffffff8125f6fb>] store_scaling_governor+0x1e7/0x223     
>                   [<ffffffff8126038f>] store+0x5f/0x83                    
>                       [<ffffffff81125107>] sysfs_write_file+0xe4/0x119    
>                           [<ffffffff810d24ae>] vfs_write+0xab/0x105       
>                               [<ffffffff810d25cc>] sys_write+0x47/0x70    
>                                   [<ffffffff8100bc2b>] 
> system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b                           
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff                                 
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> 3 locks held by K99cpuspeed/9923:
> #0:  (&buffer->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8112505b>] sysfs_write_file+0x38/0x119
> #1:  (&per_cpu(cpu_policy_rwsem, cpu)){+++++.}, at: [<ffffffff8125fc31>] lock_policy_rwsem_write+0x48/0x78
> #2:  (dbs_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0073aa8>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x23c/0x2cc [cpufreq_ondemand]
>
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 9923, comm: K99cpuspeed Not tainted 2.6.30-rc7-block-2.6 #1
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff81062750>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x71/0x7c
> [<ffffffff8106341d>] __lock_acquire+0x957/0xbeb
> [<ffffffff8106379f>] lock_acquire+0xee/0x112
> [<ffffffff81051155>] ? __cancel_work_timer+0xd9/0x21d
> [<ffffffff81051189>] __cancel_work_timer+0x10d/0x21d
> [<ffffffff81051155>] ? __cancel_work_timer+0xd9/0x21d
> [<ffffffff812f5218>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x3c2/0x419
> [<ffffffffa0073aa8>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x23c/0x2cc [cpufreq_ondemand]
> [<ffffffff81061e66>] ? mark_held_locks+0x4d/0x6b
> [<ffffffffa0073aa8>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x23c/0x2cc [cpufreq_ondemand]
> [<ffffffff810512a6>] cancel_delayed_work_sync+0xd/0xf
> [<ffffffffa0073abb>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x24f/0x2cc [cpufreq_ondemand]
> [<ffffffff810580f1>] ? up_read+0x26/0x2b
> [<ffffffff8125eaa4>] __cpufreq_governor+0x84/0xc2
> [<ffffffff8125ec98>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x17f/0x211
> [<ffffffff8125f6fb>] store_scaling_governor+0x1e7/0x223
> [<ffffffff812604dc>] ? handle_update+0x0/0x33
> [<ffffffff812f5569>] ? down_write+0x45/0x49
> [<ffffffff8126038f>] store+0x5f/0x83
> [<ffffffff81125107>] sysfs_write_file+0xe4/0x119
> [<ffffffff810d24ae>] vfs_write+0xab/0x105
> [<ffffffff810d25cc>] sys_write+0x47/0x70
> [<ffffffff8100bc2b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/