[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140628174546.991465978@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:46:27 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3.14 030/110] mm: vmscan: clear kswapds special reclaim powers before exiting
3.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
commit 71abdc15adf8c702a1dd535f8e30df50758848d2 upstream.
When kswapd exits, it can end up taking locks that were previously held
by allocating tasks while they waited for reclaim. Lockdep currently
warns about this:
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 06:06:34PM +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
> inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-R} usage.
> kswapd2/1151 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> (&sig->group_rwsem){+++++?}, at: exit_signals+0x24/0x130
> {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
> mark_held_locks+0xb9/0x140
> lockdep_trace_alloc+0x7a/0xe0
> kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x37/0x240
> flex_array_alloc+0x99/0x1a0
> cgroup_attach_task+0x63/0x430
> attach_task_by_pid+0x210/0x280
> cgroup_procs_write+0x16/0x20
> cgroup_file_write+0x120/0x2c0
> vfs_write+0xc0/0x1f0
> SyS_write+0x4c/0xa0
> tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
> irq event stamp: 49
> hardirqs last enabled at (49): _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x36/0x70
> hardirqs last disabled at (48): _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x2b/0xa0
> softirqs last enabled at (0): copy_process.part.24+0x627/0x15f0
> softirqs last disabled at (0): (null)
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0
> ----
> lock(&sig->group_rwsem);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(&sig->group_rwsem);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> no locks held by kswapd2/1151.
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 30 PID: 1151 Comm: kswapd2 Not tainted 3.10.39+ #4
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
> print_usage_bug+0x1f7/0x208
> mark_lock+0x21d/0x2a0
> __lock_acquire+0x52a/0xb60
> lock_acquire+0xa2/0x140
> down_read+0x51/0xa0
> exit_signals+0x24/0x130
> do_exit+0xb5/0xa50
> kthread+0xdb/0x100
> ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
This is because the kswapd thread is still marked as a reclaimer at the
time of exit. But because it is exiting, nobody is actually waiting on
it to make reclaim progress anymore, and it's nothing but a regular
thread at this point. Be tidy and strip it of all its powers
(PF_MEMALLOC, PF_SWAPWRITE, PF_KSWAPD, and the lockdep reclaim state)
before returning from the thread function.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Reported-by: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -3316,7 +3316,10 @@ static int kswapd(void *p)
}
}
+ tsk->flags &= ~(PF_MEMALLOC | PF_SWAPWRITE | PF_KSWAPD);
current->reclaim_state = NULL;
+ lockdep_clear_current_reclaim_state();
+
return 0;
}
--
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