Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Luis Henriques <> | Subject | [PATCH 3.5 84/90] cpuset: Fix memory allocator deadlock | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2013 17:36:06 +0000 |
| |
3.5.7.27 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
commit 0fc0287c9ed1ffd3706f8b4d9b314aa102ef1245 upstream.
Juri hit the below lockdep report:
[ 4.303391] ====================================================== [ 4.303392] [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ] [ 4.303394] 3.12.0-dl-peterz+ #144 Not tainted [ 4.303395] ------------------------------------------------------ [ 4.303397] kworker/u4:3/689 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire: [ 4.303399] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8114e63c>] new_slab+0x6c/0x290 [ 4.303417] [ 4.303417] and this task is already holding: [ 4.303418] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff812d2dfb>] blk_execute_rq_nowait+0x5b/0x100 [ 4.303431] which would create a new lock dependency: [ 4.303432] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...} [ 4.303436]
[ 4.303898] the dependencies between the lock to be acquired and SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock: [ 4.303918] -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...} ops: 2762 { [ 4.303922] HARDIRQ-ON-W at: [ 4.303923] [<ffffffff8108ab9a>] __lock_acquire+0x65a/0x1ff0 [ 4.303926] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140 [ 4.303929] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180 [ 4.303931] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 4.303933] SOFTIRQ-ON-W at: [ 4.303933] [<ffffffff8108abcc>] __lock_acquire+0x68c/0x1ff0 [ 4.303935] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140 [ 4.303940] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180 [ 4.303955] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 4.303959] INITIAL USE at: [ 4.303960] [<ffffffff8108a884>] __lock_acquire+0x344/0x1ff0 [ 4.303963] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140 [ 4.303966] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180 [ 4.303969] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0 [ 4.303972] }
Which reports that we take mems_allowed_seq with interrupts enabled. A little digging found that this can only be from cpuset_change_task_nodemask().
This is an actual deadlock because an interrupt doing an allocation will hit get_mems_allowed()->...->__read_seqcount_begin(), which will spin forever waiting for the write side to complete.
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Reported-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@canonical.com> --- kernel/cpuset.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cpuset.c b/kernel/cpuset.c index 4611da5..2627f0d0 100644 --- a/kernel/cpuset.c +++ b/kernel/cpuset.c @@ -983,8 +983,10 @@ static void cpuset_change_task_nodemask(struct task_struct *tsk, need_loop = task_has_mempolicy(tsk) || !nodes_intersects(*newmems, tsk->mems_allowed); - if (need_loop) + if (need_loop) { + local_irq_disable(); write_seqcount_begin(&tsk->mems_allowed_seq); + } nodes_or(tsk->mems_allowed, tsk->mems_allowed, *newmems); mpol_rebind_task(tsk, newmems, MPOL_REBIND_STEP1); @@ -992,8 +994,10 @@ static void cpuset_change_task_nodemask(struct task_struct *tsk, mpol_rebind_task(tsk, newmems, MPOL_REBIND_STEP2); tsk->mems_allowed = *newmems; - if (need_loop) + if (need_loop) { write_seqcount_end(&tsk->mems_allowed_seq); + local_irq_enable(); + } task_unlock(tsk); } -- 1.8.3.2
| |