Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: fix lock ordering between the queue ->sysfs_lock and freeze-lock

[Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 11:32:37PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/7/25 5:29 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 06:52:36PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/5/25 9:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 08:14:47PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> >>>>  
> >>>>  static void __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> >>>> @@ -5006,8 +5008,10 @@ static void __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> >>>>  		return;
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	memflags = memalloc_noio_save();
> >>>> -	list_for_each_entry(q, &set->tag_list, tag_set_list)
> >>>> +	list_for_each_entry(q, &set->tag_list, tag_set_list) {
> >>>> +		mutex_lock(&q->sysfs_lock);
> >>>
> >>> This now means we hold up to number of request queues sysfs_lock
> >>> at the same time.  I doubt lockdep will be happy about this.
> >>> Did you test this patch with a multi-namespace nvme device or
> >>> a multi-LU per host SCSI setup?
> >>>
> >> Yeah I tested with a multi namespace NVMe disk and lockdep didn't 
> >> complain. Agreed we need to hold up q->sysfs_lock for multiple 
> >> request queues at the same time and that may not be elegant, but 
> >> looking at the mess in __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues we may not
> >> have other choice which could help correct the lock order.
> > 
> > All q->sysfs_lock instance actually shares same lock class, so this way
> > should have triggered double lock warning, please see mutex_init().
> > 
> Well, my understanding about lockdep is that even though all q->sysfs_lock
> instances share the same lock class key, lockdep differentiates locks 
> based on their memory address. Since each instance of &q->sysfs_lock has 
> got different memory address, lockdep treat each of them as distinct locks 
> and IMO, that avoids triggering double lock warning.

That isn't correct, think about how lockdep can deal with millions of
lock instances.

Please take a look at the beginning of Documentation/locking/lockdep-design.rst

```
The validator tracks the 'usage state' of lock-classes, and it tracks
the dependencies between different lock-classes.
```

Please verify it by the following code:

diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index 4e76651e786d..a4ffc6198e7b 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -5150,10 +5150,37 @@ void blk_mq_cancel_work_sync(struct request_queue *q)
 		cancel_delayed_work_sync(&hctx->run_work);
 }

+struct lock_test {
+	struct mutex	lock;
+};
+
+void init_lock_test(struct lock_test *lt)
+{
+	mutex_init(&lt->lock);
+	printk("init lock: %p\n", lt);
+}
+
+static void test_lockdep(void)
+{
+	struct lock_test A, B;
+
+	init_lock_test(&A);
+	init_lock_test(&B);
+
+	printk("start lock test\n");
+	mutex_lock(&A.lock);
+	mutex_lock(&B.lock);
+	mutex_unlock(&B.lock);
+	mutex_unlock(&A.lock);
+	printk("end lock test\n");
+}
+
 static int __init blk_mq_init(void)
 {
 	int i;

+	test_lockdep();
+
 	for_each_possible_cpu(i)
 		init_llist_head(&per_cpu(blk_cpu_done, i));
 	for_each_possible_cpu(i)



Thanks,
Ming