On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:09:35AM +0530, Sahitya Tummala wrote: > __list_lru_walk_one() acquires nlru spin lock (nlru->lock) for > longer duration if there are more number of items in the lru list. > As per the current code, it can hold the spin lock for upto maximum > UINT_MAX entries at a time. So if there are more number of items in > the lru list, then "BUG: spinlock lockup suspected" is observed in > the below path - > > [<ffffff8eca0fb0bc>] spin_bug+0x90 > [<ffffff8eca0fb220>] do_raw_spin_lock+0xfc > [<ffffff8ecafb7798>] _raw_spin_lock+0x28 > [<ffffff8eca1ae884>] list_lru_add+0x28 > [<ffffff8eca1f5dac>] dput+0x1c8 > [<ffffff8eca1eb46c>] path_put+0x20 > [<ffffff8eca1eb73c>] terminate_walk+0x3c > [<ffffff8eca1eee58>] path_lookupat+0x100 > [<ffffff8eca1f00fc>] filename_lookup+0x6c > [<ffffff8eca1f0264>] user_path_at_empty+0x54 > [<ffffff8eca1e066c>] SyS_faccessat+0xd0 > [<ffffff8eca084e30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24 > > This nlru->lock is acquired by another CPU in this path - > > [<ffffff8eca1f5fd0>] d_lru_shrink_move+0x34 > [<ffffff8eca1f6180>] dentry_lru_isolate_shrink+0x48 > [<ffffff8eca1aeafc>] __list_lru_walk_one.isra.10+0x94 > [<ffffff8eca1aec34>] list_lru_walk_node+0x40 > [<ffffff8eca1f6620>] shrink_dcache_sb+0x60 > [<ffffff8eca1e56a8>] do_remount_sb+0xbc > [<ffffff8eca1e583c>] do_emergency_remount+0xb0 > [<ffffff8eca0ba510>] process_one_work+0x228 > [<ffffff8eca0bb158>] worker_thread+0x2e0 > [<ffffff8eca0c040c>] kthread+0xf4 > [<ffffff8eca084dd0>] ret_from_fork+0x10 > > Fix this lockup by reducing the number of entries to be shrinked > from the lru list to 1024 at once. Also, add cond_resched() before > processing the lru list again. > > Link: http://marc.info/?t=149722864900001&r=1&w=2 > Fix-suggested-by: Jan kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > Fix-suggested-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
