On 16.05.19 02:42, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:12 AM Pavel Tatashin
> <pasha.tatashin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Pavel,
>>>
>>> I am working on adding this sort of a workflow into a new daxctl command
>>> (daxctl-reconfigure-device)- this will allow changing the 'mode' of a
>>> dax device to kmem, online the resulting memory, and with your patches,
>>> also attempt to offline the memory, and change back to device-dax.
>>>
>>> In running with these patches, and testing the offlining part, I ran
>>> into the following lockdep below.
>>>
>>> This is with just these three patches on top of -rc7.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ +0.004886] ======================================================
>>> [ +0.001576] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>>> [ +0.001506] 5.1.0-rc7+ #13 Tainted: G O
>>> [ +0.000929] ------------------------------------------------------
>>> [ +0.000708] daxctl/22950 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> [ +0.000548] 00000000f4d397f7 (kn->count#424){++++}, at: kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x40/0x80
>>> [ +0.000922]
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>> [ +0.000657] 000000002aa52a9f (mem_sysfs_mutex){+.+.}, at: unregister_memory_section+0x22/0xa0
>>
>> I have studied this issue, and now have a clear understanding why it
>> happens, I am not yet sure how to fix it, so suggestions are welcomed
>> :)
>
> I would think that ACPI hotplug would have a similar problem, but it does this:
>
> acpi_unbind_memory_blocks(info);
> __remove_memory(nid, info->start_addr, info->length);
>
> I wonder if that ordering prevents going too deep into the
> device_unregister() call stack that you highlighted below.
>
If that doesn't help, after we have
[PATCH v2 0/8] mm/memory_hotplug: Factor out memory block device handling
we could probably pull the memory device removal phase out from the
mem_hotplug_lock protection and let it be protected by the
device_hotplug_lock only. Might require some more work, though.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
