On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:11:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:35:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:49:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:10:56AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > > The reason we don't have lock clases for the ilock is that we aren't
> > > > supposed to call memory reclaim with that lock held in exclusive
> > > > mode. This is because reclaim can run transactions, and that may
> > > > need to flush dirty inodes to make progress. Flushing dirty inode
> > > > requires taking the ilock in shared mode.
> > > >
> > > > In the code path that was reported, we hold the ilock in /shared/
> > > > mode with no transaction context (we are doing a read-only
> > > > operation). This means we can run transactions in memory reclaim
> > > > because a) we can't deadlock on the inode we hold locks on, and b)
> > > > transaction reservations will be able to make progress as we don't
> > > > hold any locks it can block on.
> > >
> > > Just to clarify; I read the above as that we cannot block on recursive
> > > shared locks, is this correct?
> > >
> > > Because we can in fact block on down_read()+down_read() just fine, so if
> > > you're assuming that, then something's busted.
> >
> > The transaction reservation path will run down_read_trylock() on the
> > inode, not down_read(). Hence if there are no pending writers, it
> > will happily take the lock twice and make progress, otherwise it
> > will skip the inode and there's no deadlock. If there's a pending
> > writer, then we have another context that is already in a
> > transaction context and has already pushed the item, hence it is
> > only in the scope of the current push because IO hasn't completed
> > yet and removed it from the list.
> >
> > > Otherwise, I'm not quite reading it right, which is, given the
> > > complexity of that stuff, entirely possible.
> >
> > There's a maze of dark, grue-filled twisty passages here...
>
> OK; I might need a bit more again.
>
> So now the code does something like:
>
> down_read(&i_lock); -- lockdep marks lock as held
> kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL); -- lockdep marks held locks as ENABLED_RECLAIM_FS
> --> reclaim()
> down_read_trylock(&i_lock); -- lockdep does _NOT_ mark as USED_IN_RECLAIM_FS
>
> Right?
In the path that can deadlock the log, yes. It's actually way more
complex than the above, because the down_read_trylock(&i_lock) that
matters is run in a completely separate, async kthread that
xfs_trans_reserve() will block waiting for.
process context xfsaild kthread(*)
--------------- ------------------
down_read(&i_lock); -- lockdep marks lock as held
kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL); -- lockdep marks held locks as ENABLED_RECLAIM_FS
--> reclaim()
xfs_trans_reserve()
....
xfs_trans_push_ail() ---- called if no space in the log to kick the xfsaild into action
....
xlog_grant_head_wait() ---- blocks waiting for log space
.....
xfsaild_push() ----- iterates AIL
grabs log item
lock log item
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down_read_trylock(&i_lock);
format item into buffer
add to dirty buffer list
....
submit dirty buffer list for IO
buffer IO started
.....
<async IO completion context>
buffer callbacks
mark inode clean
remove inode from AIL
move tail of log forwards
wake grant head waiters
<woken by log tail moving>
<log space available>
transaction reservation granted
.....
down_write(some other inode ilock)
<modify some other inode>
xfs_trans_commit
.....
(*) xfsaild runs with PF_MEMALLOC context.
The problem is that if the ilock is held exclusively at GFP_KERNEL
time, the xfsaild cannot lock the inode to flush it, so if that
inode pins the tail of the log then we can't make space available
for xfs_trans_reserve and there is the deadlock.
Once xfs_trans_reserve completes, however, we'll take the ilock on
*some other inode*, and that's where the "it can't be the inode we
currently hold locked because we have references to it" and
henceit's safe to have a pattern like:
down_read(&i_lock); -- lockdep marks lock as held
kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL); -- lockdep marks held locks as ENABLED_RECLAIM_FS
--> reclaim()
down_write(&ilock)
because the lock within reclaim context is completely unrelated to
the lock we already hold.
Lockdep can't possibly know about this because the deadlock involves
locking contexts that *aren't doing anything wrong within their own
contexts*. It's only when you add the dependency of log space
reservation requirements needed to make forwards progress that
there's then an issue with locking and reclaim.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>