Thanks for your test. I have reviewed the patch: [PATCH 4.19 76/86] mm: memcg/slab: fix memory leak at non-root kmem_cache destroy There is a backport problem and I have pointed out the problem in that email. On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:34 PM Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 at 19:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 4.19.135 release. > > There are 86 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response > > to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please > > let me know. > > > > Responses should be made by Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:48:51 +0000. > > Anything received after that time might be too late. > > > > The whole patch series can be found in one patch at: > > https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/stable-review/patch-4.19.135-rc1.gz > > or in the git tree and branch at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git linux-4.19.y > > and the diffstat can be found below. > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > > ------------- > > Pseudo-Shortlog of commits: > <trim> > > Results from Linaro’s test farm. > Regressions detected on x86_64. > > Boot failures on x86_64 devices running 4.19.135-rc1 kernel. > > Summary > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > kernel: 4.19.135-rc1 > git repo: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable-rc.git > git branch: linux-4.19.y > git commit: e11702667f84474535b156dbb194deffa0a6cdb4 > git describe: v4.19.134-87-ge11702667f84 > Test details: https://qa-reports.linaro.org/lkft/linux-stable-rc-4.19-oe/build/v4.19.134-87-ge11702667f84 > > > Muchun Song <songmuchun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > mm: memcg/slab: fix memory leak at non-root kmem_cache destroy > > [ 2.510884] ============================================ > [ 2.510884] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected > [ 2.510884] 4.19.135-rc1 #1 Not tainted > [ 2.510884] -------------------------------------------- > [ 2.510884] swapper/0/1 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 2.510884] 0000000088703397 (slab_mutex){+.+.}, at: > kmem_cache_destroy+0x9a/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] > [ 2.510884] but task is already holding lock: > [ 2.510884] 0000000088703397 (slab_mutex){+.+.}, at: > kmem_cache_destroy+0x45/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] > [ 2.510884] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 2.510884] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [ 2.510884] > [ 2.510884] CPU0 > [ 2.510884] ---- > [ 2.510884] lock(slab_mutex); > [ 2.510884] lock(slab_mutex); > [ 2.510884] > [ 2.510884] *** DEADLOCK *** > [ 2.510884] > [ 2.510884] May be due to missing lock nesting notation > [ 2.510884] > [ 2.510884] 3 locks held by swapper/0/1: > [ 2.510884] #0: 000000008702dddc (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, > at: kmem_cache_destroy+0x32/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] #1: 0000000050103e4d (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, > at: kmem_cache_destroy+0x37/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] #2: 0000000088703397 (slab_mutex){+.+.}, at: > kmem_cache_destroy+0x45/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] > [ 2.510884] stack backtrace: > [ 2.510884] CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.19.135-rc1 #1 > [ 2.510884] Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-5019S-ML/X11SSH-F, BIOS > 2.0b 07/27/2017 > [ 2.510884] Call Trace: > [ 2.510884] dump_stack+0x7a/0xa5 > [ 2.510884] __lock_acquire+0x6f1/0x1380 > [ 2.510884] ? ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 > [ 2.510884] lock_acquire+0x95/0x190 > [ 2.510884] ? lock_acquire+0x95/0x190 > [ 2.510884] ? kmem_cache_destroy+0x9a/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] ? kmem_cache_destroy+0x9a/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] __mutex_lock+0x83/0x990 > [ 2.510884] ? kmem_cache_destroy+0x9a/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] ? kmem_cache_destroy+0x60/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] ? set_debug_rodata+0x17/0x17 > [ 2.510884] ? set_debug_rodata+0x17/0x17 > [ 2.510884] mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 > [ 2.510884] ? get_online_mems+0x5f/0x90 > [ 2.510884] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 > [ 2.510884] kmem_cache_destroy+0x9a/0x2b0 > [ 2.510884] ? set_debug_rodata+0x17/0x17 > [ 2.510884] intel_iommu_init+0x11c6/0x1326 > [ 2.510884] ? kfree+0xc4/0x240 > [ 2.510884] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0xef/0x180 > [ 2.510884] ? kfree+0xc4/0x240 > [ 2.510884] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x4c/0x100 > [ 2.510884] ? unpack_to_rootfs+0x272/0x29a > [ 2.510884] ? e820__memblock_setup+0x64/0x64 > [ 2.510884] ? set_debug_rodata+0x17/0x17 > [ 2.510884] pci_iommu_init+0x1a/0x44 > [ 2.510884] ? e820__memblock_setup+0x64/0x64 > [ 2.510884] ? pci_iommu_init+0x1a/0x44 > [ 2.510884] do_one_initcall+0x61/0x2b4 > [ 2.510884] ? set_debug_rodata+0xa/0x17 > [ 2.510884] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x81/0x90 > [ 2.510884] kernel_init_freeable+0x1d8/0x270 > [ 2.510884] ? rest_init+0x190/0x190 > [ 2.510884] kernel_init+0xe/0x110 > [ 2.510884] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 > > > Full test log: > https://pastebin.com/PWkk0YaF > > -- > Linaro LKFT > https://lkft.linaro.org -- Yours, Muchun
