On Thu, 17 Aug 2017 12:24:39 -0400 Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/17/2017 09:34 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 16:40:40 -0400 > > Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> The lockdep code had reported the following unsafe locking scenario: > >> > >> CPU0 CPU1 > >> ---- ---- > >> lock(s_active#228); > >> lock(&bdev->bd_mutex/1); > >> lock(s_active#228); > >> lock(&bdev->bd_mutex); > > Can you show the exact locations of these locks. I have no idea where > > this "s_active" is. > The s_active isn't an actual lock. It is a reference count (kn->count) > on the sysfs (kernfs) file. Removal of a sysfs file, however, require > a wait until all the references are gone. The reference count is > treated like a rwsem using lockdep instrumentation code. Which kernel is this? I don't see any lockdep annotation around kn->count (doing a git grep, I find it referenced in fs/kernfs/dir.c) > > >> *** DEADLOCK *** > >> > >> The deadlock may happen when one task (CPU1) is trying to delete > >> a partition in a block device and another task (CPU0) is accessing > >> tracing sysfs file in that partition. > >> > >> To avoid that, accessing tracing sysfs file will now use a mutex > >> trylock loop and the operation will fail if a delete operation is > >> in progress. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> v2: > >> - Use READ_ONCE() and smp_store_mb() to read and write bd_deleting. > >> - Check for signal in the mutex_trylock loops. > >> - Use usleep() instead of schedule() for RT tasks. > > I'm sorry but I really do hate this patch. > > Any suggestion on how to make it better? I'd like to be able to at least trigger the warning. And see the lock issues. I wont be able to recommend anything until I understand what is happening. > The root cause is the lock inversion under this circumstance. I think > modifying the blk_trace code has the least impact overall. I agree that > the code is ugly. If you have a better suggestion, I will certainly like > to hear it. Again, I need to see where the issue lies before recommending something else. I would hope there is a more elegant solution to this. -- Steve
