在 2021/2/19 上午9:12, Jens Axboe 写道:
On 2/18/21 7:39 AM, Hao Xu wrote:Abaci reported the below issue: [ 141.400455] hrtimer: interrupt took 205853 ns [ 189.869316] process 'usr/local/ilogtail/ilogtail_0.16.26' started with executable stack [ 250.188042] [ 250.188327] ============================================ [ 250.189015] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 250.189732] 5.11.0-rc4 #1 Not tainted [ 250.190267] -------------------------------------------- [ 250.190917] a.out/7363 is trying to acquire lock: [ 250.191506] ffff888114dbcbe8 (&ctx->uring_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __io_req_task_submit+0x29/0xa0 [ 250.192599] [ 250.192599] but task is already holding lock: [ 250.193309] ffff888114dbfbe8 (&ctx->uring_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __x64_sys_io_uring_register+0xad/0x210 [ 250.194426] [ 250.194426] other info that might help us debug this: [ 250.195238] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 250.195238] [ 250.196019] CPU0 [ 250.196411] ---- [ 250.196803] lock(&ctx->uring_lock); [ 250.197420] lock(&ctx->uring_lock); [ 250.197966] [ 250.197966] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 250.197966] [ 250.198837] May be due to missing lock nesting notation [ 250.198837] [ 250.199780] 1 lock held by a.out/7363: [ 250.200373] #0: ffff888114dbfbe8 (&ctx->uring_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __x64_sys_io_uring_register+0xad/0x210 [ 250.201645] [ 250.201645] stack backtrace: [ 250.202298] CPU: 0 PID: 7363 Comm: a.out Not tainted 5.11.0-rc4 #1 [ 250.203144] Hardware name: Red Hat KVM, BIOS 0.5.1 01/01/2011 [ 250.203887] Call Trace: [ 250.204302] dump_stack+0xac/0xe3 [ 250.204804] __lock_acquire+0xab6/0x13a0 [ 250.205392] lock_acquire+0x2c3/0x390 [ 250.205928] ? __io_req_task_submit+0x29/0xa0 [ 250.206541] __mutex_lock+0xae/0x9f0 [ 250.207071] ? __io_req_task_submit+0x29/0xa0 [ 250.207745] ? 0xffffffffa0006083 [ 250.208248] ? __io_req_task_submit+0x29/0xa0 [ 250.208845] ? __io_req_task_submit+0x29/0xa0 [ 250.209452] ? __io_req_task_submit+0x5/0xa0 [ 250.210083] __io_req_task_submit+0x29/0xa0 [ 250.210687] io_async_task_func+0x23d/0x4c0 [ 250.211278] task_work_run+0x89/0xd0 [ 250.211884] io_run_task_work_sig+0x50/0xc0 [ 250.212464] io_sqe_files_unregister+0xb2/0x1f0 [ 250.213109] __io_uring_register+0x115a/0x1750 [ 250.213718] ? __x64_sys_io_uring_register+0xad/0x210 [ 250.214395] ? __fget_files+0x15a/0x260 [ 250.214956] __x64_sys_io_uring_register+0xbe/0x210 [ 250.215620] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x46/0x110 [ 250.216205] do_syscall_64+0x2d/0x40 [ 250.216731] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 [ 250.217455] RIP: 0033:0x7f0fa17e5239 [ 250.218034] Code: 01 00 48 81 c4 80 00 00 00 e9 f1 fe ff ff 0f 1f 00 48 89 f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 27 ec 2c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48 [ 250.220343] RSP: 002b:00007f0fa1eeac48 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000001ab [ 250.221360] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f0fa17e5239 [ 250.222272] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000003 RDI: 0000000000000008 [ 250.223185] RBP: 00007f0fa1eeae20 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 [ 250.224091] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000 [ 250.224999] R13: 0000000000021000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00007f0fa1eeb700 This is caused by calling io_run_task_work_sig() to do work under uring_lock while the caller io_sqe_files_unregister() already held uring_lock. To fix this issue, briefly drop uring_lock when calling io_run_task_work_sig(), and there are two things to concern: - hold uring_lock in io_ring_ctx_free() when calling io_sqe_files_unregister() this is for consistency of lock/unlock. - add new fixed file ref node before dropping uring_lock it's not safe to do io_uring_enter-->percpu_ref_get() with a dying one. - check if file_data->refs is dying to avoid parallel io_sqe_files_unregisterThis no longer applies to for-5.12/io_uring - care to recheck and respin?
Sorry, I'll send a new one against latest for-5.12/io_uring soon.
