linux-kernel - Re: deadlock on vmap_area

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]

Message-ID: <20130501220303.GO10481@dastard>
Date:	Thu, 2 May 2013 08:03:04 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: deadlock on vmap_area_lock

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 08:57:38AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013, Shawn Bohrer wrote:
> 
> > I've got two compute clusters with around 350 machines each which are
> > running kernels based off of 3.1.9 (Yes I realize this is ancient by
> > todays standards).

xfs_info output of one of those filesystems? What platform are you
running (32 or 64 bit)?

> > All of the machines run a 'find' command once an
> > hour on one of the mounted XFS filesystems.  Occasionally these find
> > commands get stuck requiring a reboot of the system.  I took a peek
> > today and see this with perf:
> > 
> >     72.22%          find  [kernel.kallsyms]          [k] _raw_spin_lock
> >                     |
> >                     --- _raw_spin_lock
> >                        |          
> >                        |--98.84%-- vm_map_ram
> >                        |          _xfs_buf_map_pages
> >                        |          xfs_buf_get
> >                        |          xfs_buf_read
> >                        |          xfs_trans_read_buf
> >                        |          xfs_da_do_buf
> >                        |          xfs_da_read_buf
> >                        |          xfs_dir2_block_getdents
> >                        |          xfs_readdir
> >                        |          xfs_file_readdir
> >                        |          vfs_readdir
> >                        |          sys_getdents
> >                        |          system_call_fastpath
> >                        |          __getdents64
> >                        |          
> >                        |--1.12%-- _xfs_buf_map_pages
> >                        |          xfs_buf_get
> >                        |          xfs_buf_read
> >                        |          xfs_trans_read_buf
> >                        |          xfs_da_do_buf
> >                        |          xfs_da_read_buf
> >                        |          xfs_dir2_block_getdents
> >                        |          xfs_readdir
> >                        |          xfs_file_readdir
> >                        |          vfs_readdir
> >                        |          sys_getdents
> >                        |          system_call_fastpath
> >                        |          __getdents64
> >                         --0.04%-- [...]
> > 
> > Looking at the code my best guess is that we are spinning on
> > vmap_area_lock, but I could be wrong.  This is the only process
> > spinning on the machine so I'm assuming either another process has
> > blocked while holding the lock, or perhaps this find process has tried
> > to acquire the vmap_area_lock twice?
> > 
> 
> Significant spinlock contention doesn't necessarily mean that there's a 
> deadlock, but it also doesn't mean the opposite.  Depending on your 
> definition of "occassionally", would it be possible to run with 
> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and CONFIG_LOCKDEP to see if it uncovers any real 
> deadlock potential?

It sure will. We've been reporting that vm_map_ram is doing
GFP_KERNEL allocations from GFP_NOFS context for years, and have
reported plenty of lockdep dumps as a result of it.

But that's not the problem that is occurring above - lockstat is
probably a good thing to look at here to determine exactly what
locks are being contended on....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/