[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18f3929d-9a29-4734-8466-17fa9e528c8f@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 11:49:40 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blk_iocost: remove some duplicate irq disable/enables
On 10/3/24 10:38, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/3/24 8:31 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 07:21:25AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 10/3/24 6:03 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>>>> 3117 ioc_now(iocg->ioc, &now);
>>>> 3118 weight_updated(iocg, &now);
>>>> 3119 spin_unlock(&iocg->ioc->lock);
>>>> 3120 }
>>>> 3121 }
>>>> 3122 spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
>>>> 3123
>>>> 3124 return nbytes;
>>>> 3125 }
>>>> 3126
>>>> 3127 blkg_conf_init(&ctx, buf);
>>>> 3128
>>>> 3129 ret = blkg_conf_prep(blkcg, &blkcg_policy_iocost, &ctx);
>>>> 3130 if (ret)
>>>> 3131 goto err;
>>>> 3132
>>>> 3133 iocg = blkg_to_iocg(ctx.blkg);
>>>> 3134
>>>> 3135 if (!strncmp(ctx.body, "default", 7)) {
>>>> 3136 v = 0;
>>>> 3137 } else {
>>>> 3138 if (!sscanf(ctx.body, "%u", &v))
>>>> 3139 goto einval;
>>>> 3140 if (v < CGROUP_WEIGHT_MIN || v > CGROUP_WEIGHT_MAX)
>>>> 3141 goto einval;
>>>> 3142 }
>>>> 3143
>>>> 3144 spin_lock(&iocg->ioc->lock);
>>>>
>>>> But why is this not spin_lock_irq()? I haven't analyzed this so maybe it's
>>>> fine.
>>> That's a bug.
>>>
>> I could obviously write this patch but I feel stupid writing the
>> commit message. My level of understanding is Monkey See Monkey do.
>> Could you take care of this?
> Sure - or let's add Tejun who knows this code better. Ah he's already
> added. Tejun?
>
>> So somewhere we're taking a lock in the IRQ handler and this can lead
>> to a deadlock? I thought this would have been caught by lockdep?
> It's nested inside blkcg->lock which is IRQ safe, that is enough. But
> doing a quick scan of the file, the usage is definitely (widly)
> inconsistent. Most times ioc->lock is grabbed disabling interrupts, but
> there are also uses that doesn't disable interrupts, coming from things
> like seq_file show paths which certainly look like they need it. lockdep
> should certainly warn about this, only explanation I have is that nobody
> bothered to do that :-)
The lockdep validator will only warn about this if a debug kernel with
lockdep enabled has run a workload that exercises all the relevant
locking sequences that can implicate a potential for deadlock.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists