On Mon, Oct 30 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> >
> > > so to me it looks like lockdep at least has the appearance of moaning
> > > about a reasonably fishy situation...
> >
> > To me it looks more about lockdep complaining because it doesn't grok
> > the full picture. The question is how to shut it up.
>
> ok that is quite possible. But I do think you read the original output
> incorrectly so let me at least phrase it in english:
>
>
> __queue_lock is used in softirq context like this:
> [<c0361c59>] _spin_lock+0x29/0x40
> [<c029fa24>] scsi_device_unbusy+0x64/0x90
> [<c029a5bc>] scsi_finish_command+0x1c/0xa0
> [<c02115c2>] blk_done_softirq+0x62/0x70
> [<c0122a27>] __do_softirq+0x87/0x100
> [<c0122af5>] do_softirq+0x55/0x60
> [<c0122f3c>] ksoftirqd+0x7c/0xd0
> [<c0130f76>] kthread+0xf6/0x100
>
> which means that it always has to be taken _irq / _irqsave and one never
> can enable interrupts while holding this lock. This backtrace is from
> the first time the lock was taken in irq context.
>
> Now a new situation has arisen that violates this constraint, and it
> looks like this:
>
>
> [<c0219091>] cfq_set_request+0x351/0x3b0
> [<c020c7fc>] elv_set_request+0x1c/0x40
> [<c020fcff>] get_request+0x23f/0x270
> [<c0210537>] get_request_wait+0x27/0x120
> [<c02107ca>] __make_request+0x5a/0x350
> [<c020f40f>] generic_make_request+0x16f/0x220
> [<c02117e4>] submit_bio+0x64/0x110
>
> now cfq_set_request() uses several inlines which muddies the situation,
> but lockdep claims one of them is not done correctly. (eg either it
> takes the lock incorrectly or something does spin_unlock_irq while the
> lock is held)
It's not really inlined trickery, the trace is exactly as printed. A few
things may be allocated from that path, so we pass gfp_mask around. I'll
double check it tonight, but I don't currently see what could be wrong.
Would lockdep complain about:
spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
...
spin_unlock_irq(lock);
...
spin_lock_irq(lock);
...
spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
? cfq will do that, but only if it knew that interrupts were currently
enabled when we originally made the _irqsave call (when __GFP_WAIT is
set).
> I get the impression you assumed lockdep was complaining about
> scsi_device_unbusy; but it's not; that function is only referenced since
> it's the first place since boot where the lock was taken in softirq
> context... not because the violation is occuring there.
Yeah, I read it in the reverse order. To be honest, the lockdep output
is not immediately parseable to me, I guess I need to read the
documentation.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
