[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130730145834.GA32226@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:58:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: fix lockdep splat caused by pmd sharing
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 04:46:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> which is a false positive caused by hugetlb pmd sharing code which
> allocates a new pmd from withing mappint->i_mmap_mutex. If this
> allocation causes reclaim then the lockdep detector complains that we
> might self-deadlock.
>
> This is not correct though, because hugetlb pages are not reclaimable so
> their mapping will be never touched from the reclaim path.
>
> The patch tells lockup detector that hugetlb i_mmap_mutex is special
> by assigning it a separate lockdep class so it won't report possible
> deadlocks on unrelated mappings.
>
> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> ---
> fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index a3f868a..230533d 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -463,6 +463,12 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_root(struct super_block *sb,
> return inode;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Now, reclaim path never holds hugetlbfs_inode->i_mmap_mutex while it could
> + * hold normal inode->i_mmap_mutex so this annotation avoids a lockdep splat.
How about something like:
/*
* Hugetlbfs is not reclaimable; therefore its i_mmap_mutex will never
* be taken from reclaim -- unlike regular filesystems. This needs an
* annotation because huge_pmd_share() does an allocation under
* i_mmap_mutex.
*/
It clarifies the exact conditions and makes easier to verify the
validity of the annotation.
> + */
> +struct lock_class_key hugetlbfs_i_mmap_mutex_key;
> +
> static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> struct inode *dir,
> umode_t mode, dev_t dev)
> @@ -474,6 +480,8 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
> struct hugetlbfs_inode_info *info;
> inode->i_ino = get_next_ino();
> inode_init_owner(inode, dir, mode);
> + lockdep_set_class(&inode->i_mapping->i_mmap_mutex,
> + &hugetlbfs_i_mmap_mutex_key);
> inode->i_mapping->a_ops = &hugetlbfs_aops;
> inode->i_mapping->backing_dev_info =&hugetlbfs_backing_dev_info;
> inode->i_atime = inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
> --
> 1.8.3.2
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists