On Sun, 2025-01-12 at 23:50 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 12:33:13PM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > On Sat, 2025-01-11 at 11:05 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Ah, You're right, it's a different warning this time. Posted the
> > warning below. (Note: This is also with Christoph's series applied
> > on
> > top).
> >
> > May I also humbly suggest the following lockdep priming to be able
> > to
> > catch the reclaim lockdep splats early without reclaim needing to
> > happen. That will also pick up splat #2 below.
> >
> > 8<-------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index 32fb28a6372c..2dd8dc9aed7f 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -458,6 +458,11 @@ struct request_queue *blk_alloc_queue(struct
> > queue_limits *lim, int node_id)
> >
> > q->nr_requests = BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ;
> >
> > + fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
> > + rwsem_acquire_read(&q->io_lockdep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > + rwsem_release(&q->io_lockdep_map, _RET_IP_);
> > + fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
> > +
> > return q;
>
> Looks one nice idea for injecting fs_reclaim, maybe it can be
> added to inject framework?
For the intel gpu drivers, we typically always prime lockdep like this
if we *know* that the lock will be grabbed during reclaim, like if it's
part of shrinker processing or similar.
So sooner or later we *know* this sequence will happen so we add it
near the lock initialization to always be executed when the lock(map)
is initialized.
So I don't really see a need for them to be periodially injected?
>
> >
> > fail_stats:
> >
> > 8<-------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > #1:
> > 106.921533]
> > ======================================================
> > [ 106.921716] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency
> > detected
> > [ 106.921725] 6.13.0-rc6+ #121 Tainted: G U
> > [ 106.921734] ----------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > [ 106.921743] kswapd0/117 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 106.921751] ffff8ff4e2da09f0 (&q->q_usage_counter(io)){++++}-
> > {0:0},
> > at: __submit_bio+0x80/0x220
> > [ 106.921769]
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 106.921778] ffffffff8e65e1c0 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> > balance_pgdat+0xe2/0xa10
> > [ 106.921791]
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > [ 106.921803]
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [ 106.921814]
> > -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> > [ 106.921824] fs_reclaim_acquire+0x9d/0xd0
> > [ 106.921833] __kmalloc_cache_node_noprof+0x5d/0x3f0
> > [ 106.921842] blk_mq_init_tags+0x3d/0xb0
> > [ 106.921851] blk_mq_alloc_map_and_rqs+0x4e/0x3d0
> > [ 106.921860] blk_mq_init_sched+0x100/0x260
> > [ 106.921868] elevator_switch+0x8d/0x2e0
> > [ 106.921877] elv_iosched_store+0x174/0x1e0
> > [ 106.921885] queue_attr_store+0x142/0x180
> > [ 106.921893] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x168/0x240
> > [ 106.921902] vfs_write+0x2b2/0x540
> > [ 106.921910] ksys_write+0x72/0xf0
> > [ 106.921916] do_syscall_64+0x95/0x180
> > [ 106.921925] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
>
> That is another regression from commit
>
> af2814149883 block: freeze the queue in queue_attr_store
>
> and queue_wb_lat_store() has same risk too.
>
> I will cook a patch to fix it.
Thanks. Are these splats going to be silenced for 6.13-rc? Like having
the new lockdep checks under a special config until they are fixed?
Thanks,
Thomas
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
>
