On 2023/04/03 17:15, Michal Hocko wrote: > Is this > https://lore.kernel.org/all/0000000000001d74d205f7c1821f@xxxxxxxxxx/ the > underlying report ? Yes. > Could you explain the the deadlock scenario? build_zonelists() from __build_all_zonelists() calls printk() with zonelist_update_seq held. printk() holds console_owner lock for synchronous printing, and then upon unlock of console_owner lock, printk() holds port_lock_key and port->lock. tty_insert_flip_string_and_push_buffer() from pty_write() conditionally calls kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN) with port->lock held. But since commit 3d36424b3b58, zonelist_update_seq is checked by GFP_ATOMIC allocation (i.e. a new locking dependency was added by that commit). CPU0 CPU1 pty_write() { tty_insert_flip_string_and_push_buffer() { __build_all_zonelists() { spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); tty_insert_flip_string() { tty_insert_flip_string_fixed_flag() { __tty_buffer_request_room() { tty_buffer_alloc() { kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN) { __alloc_pages_slowpath() { write_seqlock(&zonelist_update_seq); // makes zonelist_update_seq.seqcount odd // interrupt handler starts handle_irq() { serial8250_interrupt() { serial8250_tx_chars() { tty_port_tty_get() { spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags); // spins here waiting for kmalloc() from tty_insert_flip_string() to complete zonelist_iter_begin() { read_seqbegin(&zonelist_update_seq) { // spins here waiting for interrupt handler to complete if zonelist_update_seq.seqcount is odd tty = tty_kref_get(port->tty); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); } } } } // interrupt handler ends write_sequnlock(&zonelist_update_seq); // makes zonelist_update_seq.seqcount even } } } } } } } } } spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags); } } Well, it seems that read_mems_allowed_begin() is protected by calling local_irq_save(flags) before write_seqcount_begin(¤t->mems_allowed_seq). Can zonelist_iter_begin() be protected as well (i.e. call local_irq_save(flags) before write_seqlock(&zonelist_update_seq)) ? But even if write_seqlock(&zonelist_update_seq) is called with local irq disabled, port_lock_key after all makes this warning again? This bug report might be a suggestion that we want to use two versions of __alloc_pages_slowpath(), one for atomic context which is geared towards smaller kernel stack usage and simplified locking dependency (because atomic allocation can happen from subtle context including interrupt handler) and the other for noinline version for schedulable context which is geared towards larger kernel stack usage and complicated locking dependency for implementing rich retry paths including direct reclaim and OOM kill...