On Thursday 30 April 2009 23:19:33 Eric Paris wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 19:10 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:00:04 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Fix a possible deadlock on inotify_mutex, reported by lockdep.
> > >
> > > inotify_inode_queue_event() => take inotify_mutex => kernel_event() =>
> > > kmalloc() => SLOB => alloc_pages_node() => page reclaim => slab reclaim =>
> > > dcache reclaim => inotify_inode_is_dead => take inotify_mutex => deadlock
> > >
> > > The actual deadlock may not happen because the inode was grabbed at
> > > inotify_add_watch(). But the GFP_KERNEL here is unsound and not
> > > consistent with the other two GFP_NOFS inside the same function.
> > >
> > > [ 2668.325318]
> > > [ 2668.325322] =================================
> > > [ 2668.327448] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> > > [ 2668.327448] 2.6.30-rc2-next-20090417 #203
> > > [ 2668.327448] ---------------------------------
> > > [ 2668.327448] inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
> > > [ 2668.327448] kswapd0/380 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > > [ 2668.327448] (&inode->inotify_mutex){+.+.?.}, at: [<ffffffff8112f1b5>] inotify_inode_is_dead+0x35/0xb0
>
>
> > > [ 2668.327448] Pid: 380, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 2.6.30-rc2-next-20090417 #203
> > > [ 2668.327448] Call Trace:
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff810789ef>] print_usage_bug+0x19f/0x200
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff81018bff>] ? save_stack_trace+0x2f/0x50
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff81078f0b>] mark_lock+0x4bb/0x6d0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff810799e0>] ? check_usage_forwards+0x0/0xc0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8107b142>] __lock_acquire+0xc62/0x1ae0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff810f478c>] ? slob_free+0x10c/0x370
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8107c0a1>] lock_acquire+0xe1/0x120
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8112f1b5>] ? inotify_inode_is_dead+0x35/0xb0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff81562d43>] mutex_lock_nested+0x63/0x420
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8112f1b5>] ? inotify_inode_is_dead+0x35/0xb0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8112f1b5>] ? inotify_inode_is_dead+0x35/0xb0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff81012fe9>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff81077165>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0x35/0x1c0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8112f1b5>] inotify_inode_is_dead+0x35/0xb0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8110c9dc>] dentry_iput+0xbc/0xe0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8110cb23>] d_kill+0x33/0x60
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8110ce23>] __shrink_dcache_sb+0x2d3/0x350
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8110cffa>] shrink_dcache_memory+0x15a/0x1e0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff810d0cc5>] shrink_slab+0x125/0x180
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff810d1540>] kswapd+0x560/0x7a0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff810ce160>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x2c0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff81065a30>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8107953d>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff810d0fe0>] ? kswapd+0x0/0x7a0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8106555b>] kthread+0x5b/0xa0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8100d40a>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8100cdd0>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff81065500>] ? kthread+0x0/0xa0
> > > [ 2668.327448] [<ffffffff8100d400>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
> > >
>
> >
> > Somebody was going to fix this for us via lockdep annotation.
> >
> > <adds randomly-chosen cc>
>
> I really didn't forget this, but I can't figure out how to recreate it,
> so I don't know if my logic in the patch is sound. The patch certainly
> will shut up the complaint.
>
> We can only hit this inotify cleanup path if the i_nlink = 0. I can't
> find a way to leave the dentry around for memory pressure to clean up
> later, but have the n_link = 0. On ext* the inode is kicked out as soon
> as the last close on all open fds for an inode which has been unlinked.
> I tried attaching an inotify watch to an NFS or CIFS inode, deleting the
> inode on another node, and then putting the first machine under memory
> pressure. I'm not sure why, but the dentry or inode in question were
> never evicted so I didn't hit this path either....
>
> I know the patch will shut up the problem, but since I can't figure out
> by looking at the code a path to reproduce I don't really feel 100%
> confident that it is correct....
>
> -Eric
>
> inotify: lockdep annotation when watch being removed
>
> From: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When a dentry is being evicted from memory pressure, if the inode associated
> with that dentry has i_nlink == 0 we are going to drop all of the watches and
> kick everything out. Lockdep complains that previously holding inotify_mutex
> we did a __GFP_FS allocation and now __GFP_FS reclaim is taking that lock.
> There is no deadlock or danger, since we know on this code path we are
> actually cleaning up and evicting everything. So we move the lock into a new
> class for clean up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> fs/notify/inotify/inotify.c | 11 +++++++++++
> include/linux/fsnotify.h | 6 ++++++
> include/linux/inotify.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/fs/notify/inotify/inotify.c b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify.c
> index 220c13f..a8844a1 100644
> --- a/fs/notify/inotify/inotify.c
> +++ b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> #include <linux/inotify.h>
>
> static atomic_t inotify_cookie;
> +static struct lock_class_key inotify_mutex_free;
>
> /*
> * Lock ordering:
> @@ -445,6 +446,16 @@ void inotify_unmount_inodes(struct list_head *list)
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(inotify_unmount_inodes);
>
> /**
> + * Hello!
> + */
> +void inotify_reclassify_lock(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + BUG_ON(inode->i_nlink);
> +
> + lockdep_set_class(&inode->inotify_mutex, &inotify_mutex_free);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> * inotify_inode_is_dead - an inode has been deleted, cleanup any watches
> * @inode: inode that is about to be removed
> */
> diff --git a/include/linux/fsnotify.h b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> index f8e6728..beb8d82 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> @@ -83,6 +83,12 @@ static inline void fsnotify_nameremove(struct dentry *dentry, int isdir)
> */
> static inline void fsnotify_inoderemove(struct inode *inode)
> {
> + /*
> + * only called when an inode is being evicted from cache and the
> + * i_nlink is 0, so we know that nothing else is going to be
> + * joining it
> + */
> + inotify_reclassify_lock(inode);
Hmm, shouldn't this go in the common inode freeing path rather than
a hack in inotify?
Also, I think linux-fsdevel should be cc'ed on anything like this
(which I added)
Thanks,
Nick
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
