[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <08803f78-3e99-6b3f-e809-5828fe47cf06@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 19:12:58 +0800
From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
CC: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>, <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>, Chris Clayton <chris2553@...glemail.com>,
Chris Rankin <rankincj@...il.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-5.13.2: warning from kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:359
On 2021/7/19 18:14, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 03:43:00AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:24:18AM +0800, Zhouyi Zhou wrote:
>>> Meanwhile, I examined the 5.12.17 by naked eye, and found a suspicious place
>>> that could possibly trigger that problem:
>>>
>>> struct swap_info_struct *get_swap_device(swp_entry_t entry)
>>> {
>>> struct swap_info_struct *si;
>>> unsigned long offset;
>>>
>>> if (!entry.val)
>>> goto out;
>>> si = swp_swap_info(entry);
>>> if (!si)
>>> goto bad_nofile;
>>>
>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>> if (data_race(!(si->flags & SWP_VALID)))
>>> goto unlock_out;
>>> offset = swp_offset(entry);
>>> if (offset >= si->max)
>>> goto unlock_out;
>>>
>>> return si;
>>> bad_nofile:
>>> pr_err("%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Bad_file, entry.val);
>>> out:
>>> return NULL;
>>> unlock_out:
>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>> I guess the function "return si" without a rcu_read_unlock.
>>
>> Yes, but the caller is supposed to call put_swap_device() which
>> calls rcu_read_unlock(). See commit eb085574a752.
>
> Right, but we need to make sure there is no sleepable function called
> before put_swap_device() called, and the call trace showed the following
> happened:
>
> do_swap_page():
> si = get_swap_device():
> rcu_read_lock();
> lock_page_or_retry():
> might_sleep(); // call a sleepable function inside RCU read-side c.s.
> __lock_page_or_retry():
> wait_on_page_bit_common():
> schedule():
> rcu_note_context_switch();
> // Warn here
> put_swap_device();
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> , which introduced by commit 2799e77529c2a
When in the commit 2799e77529c2a, we're using the percpu_ref to serialize against
concurrent swapoff, i.e. there's percpu_ref inside get_swap_device() instead of
rcu_read_lock(). Please see commit 63d8620ecf93 ("mm/swapfile: use percpu_ref to
serialize against concurrent swapoff") for detail.
Thanks.
>
> [Copy the author]
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists