Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:49:00 +0000
From:   Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Subject: Re: possible lockdep regression introduced by 4d004099a668 ("lockdep:
 Fix lockdep recursion")



On 04/11/20 03:44, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:22:36AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 07:44:29PM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/11/20 14:08, Boqun Feng wrote:
>>>> Hi Filipe,
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:26:49AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've recently started to hit a warning followed by tasks hanging after
>>>>> attempts to freeze a filesystem. A git bisection pointed to the
>>>>> following commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 4d004099a668c41522242aa146a38cc4eb59cb1e
>>>>> Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>>> Date:   Fri Oct 2 11:04:21 2020 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>     lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion
>>>>>
>>>>> This happens very reliably when running all xfstests with lockdep
>>>>> enabled, and the tested filesystem is btrfs (haven't tried other
>>>>> filesystems, but it shouldn't matter). The warning and task hangs always
>>>>> happen at either test generic/068 or test generic/390, and (oddly)
>>>>> always have to run all tests for it to trigger, running those tests
>>>>> individually on an infinite loop doesn't seem to trigger it (at least
>>>>> for a couple hours).
>>>>>
>>>>> The warning triggered is at fs/super.c:__sb_start_write() which always
>>>>> results later in several tasks hanging on a percpu rw_sem:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://pastebin.com/qnLvf94E
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In your dmesg, I see line:
>>>>
>>>> 	[ 9304.920151] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
>>>>
>>>> , that means debug_locks is 0, that usually happens when lockdep find a
>>>> problem (i.e. a deadlock) and it turns itself off, because a problem is
>>>> found and it's pointless for lockdep to continue to run.
>>>>
>>>> And I haven't found a lockdep splat in your dmesg, do you have a full
>>>> dmesg so that I can have a look?
>>>>
>>>> This may be relevant because in commit 4d004099a66, we have
>>>>
>>>> 	@@ -5056,13 +5081,13 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
>>>> 		unsigned long flags;
>>>> 		int ret = 0;
>>>>
>>>> 	-       if (unlikely(current->lockdep_recursion))
>>>> 	+       if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled()))
>>>> 			return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
>>>>
>>>> before this commit lock_is_held_type() and its friends may return false
>>>> if debug_locks==0, after this commit lock_is_held_type() and its friends
>>>> will always return true if debug_locks == 0. That could cause the
>>>> behavior here.
>>>>
>>>> In case I'm correct, the following "fix" may be helpful. 
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Boqun
>>>>
>>>> ----------8
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
>>>> index 3e99dfef8408..c0e27fb949ff 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
>>>> @@ -5471,7 +5464,7 @@ noinstr int lock_is_held_type(const struct lockdep_map *lock, int read)
>>>>  	unsigned long flags;
>>>>  	int ret = 0;
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (unlikely(!lockdep_enabled()))
>>>> +	if (unlikely(debug_locks && !lockdep_enabled()))
>>>>  		return 1; /* avoid false negative lockdep_assert_held() */
>>>>  
>>>>  	raw_local_irq_save(flags);
>>>
>>> Boqun, the patch fixes the problem for me!
>>> You can have Tested-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...e.com>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks. Although I think it still means that we have a lock issue when
>> running xfstests (because we don't know why debug_locks gets cleared),
> 
> I might find a place where we could turn lockdep off silently:
> 
> in print_circular_bug(), we turn off lockdep via
> debug_locks_off_graph_unlock(), and then we try to save the trace for
> lockdep splat, however, if we use up the stack_trace buffer (i.e.
> nr_stack_trace_entries), save_trace() will return NULL and we return
> silently.
> 
> Filipe, in order to check whethter that happens, could you share me your
> /proc/lockdep_stats after the full set of xfstests is finished?

Here it is:

$ cat /proc/lockdep_stats
 lock-classes:                         1831 [max: 8192]
 direct dependencies:                 17774 [max: 32768]
 indirect dependencies:               75662
 all direct dependencies:            325284
 dependency chains:                   34223 [max: 65536]
 dependency chain hlocks used:       158129 [max: 327680]
 dependency chain hlocks lost:            0
 in-hardirq chains:                      57
 in-softirq chains:                     658
 in-process chains:                   33508
 stack-trace entries:                160748 [max: 524288]
 number of stack traces:               9237
 number of stack hash chains:          7076
 combined max dependencies:      1280780998
 hardirq-safe locks:                     43
 hardirq-unsafe locks:                 1337
 softirq-safe locks:                    179
 softirq-unsafe locks:                 1236
 irq-safe locks:                        187
 irq-unsafe locks:                     1337
 hardirq-read-safe locks:                 2
 hardirq-read-unsafe locks:             209
 softirq-read-safe locks:                 9
 softirq-read-unsafe locks:             204
 irq-read-safe locks:                     9
 irq-read-unsafe locks:                 209
 uncategorized locks:                   274
 unused locks:                            0
 max locking depth:                      15
 max bfs queue depth:                   337
 debug_locks:                             0

 zapped classes:                       2278
 zapped lock chains:                  17915
 large chain blocks:                      1

(That's the result after running all fstests with the previous one line
patch you sent.)

My kernel .config:  https://pastebin.com/4xEMvLJ9

I'll try the debugging patch and let you know the results. It will take
some 4 hours or so to get back with the result.

Thanks!

> 
> Alternatively, it's also helpful if you can try the following debug
> diff, with teh full set of xfstests:
> 
> Thanks! Just trying to understand the real problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
> -------------->8
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index b71ad8d9f1c9..9ae3e089e5c0 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -539,8 +539,10 @@ static struct lock_trace *save_trace(void)
>  		LOCK_TRACE_SIZE_IN_LONGS;
>  
>  	if (max_entries <= 0) {
> -		if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock())
> +		if (!debug_locks_off_graph_unlock()) {
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>  			return NULL;
> +		}
>  
>  		print_lockdep_off("BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!");
>  		dump_stack();
> 
>> I guess I will have to reproduce this myself for further analysis, could
>> you share you .config?
>>
>> Anyway, I think this fix still makes a bit sense, I will send a proper
>> patch so that the problem won't block fs folks.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Boqun
>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What happens is percpu_rwsem_is_held() is apparently returning a false
>>>>> positive, so this makes __sb_start_write() do a
>>>>> percpu_down_read_trylock() on a percpu_rw_sem at a higher level, which
>>>>> is expected to always succeed, because if the calling task is holding a
>>>>> freeze percpu_rw_sem at level 1, it's supposed to be able to try_lock
>>>>> the semaphore at level 2, since the freeze semaphores are always
>>>>> acquired by increasing level order.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the try_lock fails, it triggers the warning at __sb_start_write(),
>>>>> then its caller sb_start_pagefault() ignores the return value and
>>>>> callers such as btrfs_page_mkwrite() make the assumption the freeze
>>>>> semaphore was taken, proceed to do their stuff, and later call
>>>>> sb_end_pagefault(), which which will do an up_read() on the percpu_rwsem
>>>>> at level 2 despite not having not been able to down_read() the
>>>>> semaphore. This obviously corrupts the semaphore's read_count state, and
>>>>> later causes any task trying to down_write() it to hang forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> After such a hang I ran a drgn script to confirm it:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ cat dump_freeze_sems.py
>>>>> import sys
>>>>> import drgn
>>>>> from drgn import NULL, Object, cast, container_of, execscript, \
>>>>>     reinterpret, sizeof
>>>>> from drgn.helpers.linux import *
>>>>>
>>>>> mnt_path = b'/home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1'
>>>>>
>>>>> mnt = None
>>>>> for mnt in for_each_mount(prog, dst = mnt_path):
>>>>>     pass
>>>>>
>>>>> if mnt is None:
>>>>>     sys.stderr.write(f'Error: mount point {mnt_path} not found\n')
>>>>>     sys.exit(1)
>>>>>
>>>>> def dump_sem(level_enum):
>>>>>     level = level_enum.value_()
>>>>>     sem = mnt.mnt.mnt_sb.s_writers.rw_sem[level - 1]
>>>>>     print(f'freeze semaphore at level {level}, {str(level_enum)}')
>>>>>     print(f'    block {sem.block.counter.value_()}')
>>>>>     for i in for_each_possible_cpu(prog):
>>>>>         read_count = per_cpu_ptr(sem.read_count, i)
>>>>>         print(f'    read_count at cpu {i} = {read_count}')
>>>>>     print()
>>>>>
>>>>> # dump semaphore read counts for all freeze levels (fs.h)
>>>>> dump_sem(prog['SB_FREEZE_WRITE'])
>>>>> dump_sem(prog['SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT'])
>>>>> dump_sem(prog['SB_FREEZE_FS'])
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> $ drgn dump_freeze_sems.py
>>>>> freeze semaphore at level 1, (enum <anonymous>)SB_FREEZE_WRITE
>>>>>     block 1
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 0 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3ee00c74 = 3
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 1 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f200c74 = 4294967293
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 2 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f600c74 = 3
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 3 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3fa00c74 = 4294967293
>>>>>
>>>>> freeze semaphore at level 2, (enum <anonymous>)SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT
>>>>>     block 1
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 0 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3ee00c78 = 0
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 1 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f200c78 = 4294967295
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 2 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f600c78 = 0
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 3 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3fa00c78 = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> freeze semaphore at level 3, (enum <anonymous>)SB_FREEZE_FS
>>>>>     block 0
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 0 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3ee00c7c = 0
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 1 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f200c7c = 0
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 2 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3f600c7c = 0
>>>>>     read_count at cpu 3 = *(unsigned int *)0xffffc2ec3fa00c7c = 0
>>>>>
>>>>> At levels 1 and 3, read_count sums to 0, so it's fine, but at level 2 it
>>>>> sums to -1. The system remains like that for hours at least, with no
>>>>> progress at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a known regression with that lockdep commit?
>>>>> Anything I can do to help debug it in case it's not obvious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists