Hi Bart,
On Tue, May 06 2014 at 5:31am -0400,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Has anyone else perhaps already run into this ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
>
> ======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 3.15.0-rc4-debug+ #1 Not tainted
> -------------------------------------------------------
> multipathd/10364 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffffa043bff3>] dm_table_run_md_queue_async+0x33/0x60 [dm_mod]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&(&m->lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffffa077a647>] queue_if_no_path+0x27/0xc0 [dm_multipath]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (&(&m->lock)->rlock){..-...}:
> [<ffffffff810a56c3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1c0
> [<ffffffff814ae8eb>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
> [<ffffffffa043a3e9>] dm_blk_open+0x19/0x80 [dm_mod]
> [<ffffffff811cbc41>] __blkdev_get+0xd1/0x4c0
> [<ffffffff811cc215>] blkdev_get+0x1e5/0x380
> [<ffffffff811cc45b>] blkdev_open+0x5b/0x80
> [<ffffffff8118a12e>] do_dentry_open.isra.15+0x1de/0x2a0
> [<ffffffff8118a300>] finish_open+0x30/0x40
> [<ffffffff8119c44d>] do_last.isra.61+0xa5d/0x1200
> [<ffffffff8119cca7>] path_openat+0xb7/0x620
> [<ffffffff8119d88a>] do_filp_open+0x3a/0x90
> [<ffffffff8118bb4e>] do_sys_open+0x12e/0x210
> [<ffffffff8118bc4e>] SyS_open+0x1e/0x20
> [<ffffffff814b84e2>] tracesys+0xd0/0xd5
I'm not sure what lockdep is trying to communicate for #1 here. Not
seeing where m->lock is taken in the above stack. Nor does it appear to
take q->queue_lock.
> -> #0 (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){-.-...}:
> [<ffffffff810a4c46>] __lock_acquire+0x1716/0x1a00
> [<ffffffff810a56c3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1c0
> [<ffffffff814aea56>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x46/0x60
> [<ffffffffa043bff3>] dm_table_run_md_queue_async+0x33/0x60 [dm_mod]
> [<ffffffffa077a692>] queue_if_no_path+0x72/0xc0 [dm_multipath]
> [<ffffffffa077a6f9>] multipath_presuspend+0x19/0x20 [dm_multipath]
> [<ffffffffa043d34a>] dm_table_presuspend_targets+0x4a/0x60 [dm_mod]
> [<ffffffffa043ad5d>] dm_suspend+0x6d/0x1f0 [dm_mod]
> [<ffffffffa043ff63>] dev_suspend+0x1c3/0x220 [dm_mod]
> [<ffffffffa0440759>] ctl_ioctl+0x269/0x500 [dm_mod]
> [<ffffffffa0440a03>] dm_ctl_ioctl+0x13/0x20 [dm_mod]
> [<ffffffff811a04c0>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x300/0x520
> [<ffffffff811a0721>] SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x80
> [<ffffffff814b84e2>] tracesys+0xd0/0xd5
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&(&m->lock)->rlock);
> lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock);
> lock(&(&m->lock)->rlock);
> lock(&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
I'm not seeing where q->queue_lock is held before m->lock is taken.
I did find that multipath_ioctl() does _not_ hold m->lock when calling
dm_table_run_md_queue_async() -- the other callers hold m->lock.
Any chance you can see if this patch silences lockdep?
--
drivers/md/dm-mpath.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-mpath.c b/drivers/md/dm-mpath.c
index aa009e8..fa0f6cb 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-mpath.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-mpath.c
@@ -1566,8 +1566,8 @@ static int multipath_ioctl(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned int cmd,
}
if (m->pg_init_required)
__pg_init_all_paths(m);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&m->lock, flags);
dm_table_run_md_queue_async(m->ti->table);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&m->lock, flags);
}
return r ? : __blkdev_driver_ioctl(bdev, mode, cmd, arg);
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
