RE: [PATCH] mm: slub: annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> 
> 
> On 2023/4/11 22:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 4/11/23 16:08, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 2023/4/11 21:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > > On 4/11/23 15:08, Qi Zheng wrote:
> > > > > The list_lock can be held in the critical section of
> > > > > raw_spinlock, and then lockdep will complain about it
> > > > > like below:
> > > > > 
> > > > >    =============================
> > > > >    [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
> > > > >    6.3.0-rc6-next-20230411 #7 Not tainted
> > > > >    -----------------------------
> > > > >    swapper/0/1 is trying to lock:
> > > > >    ffff888100055418 (&n->list_lock){....}-{3:3}, at: ___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
> > > > >    other info that might help us debug this:
> > > > >    context-{5:5}
> > > > >    2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
> > > > >     #0: ffffffff824e8160 (rcu_tasks.cbs_gbl_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: cblist_init_generic+0x22/0x2d0
> > > > >     #1: ffff888136bede50 (&ACCESS_PRIVATE(rtpcp, lock)){....}-{2:2}, at: cblist_init_generic+0x232/0x2d0
> > > > >    stack backtrace:
> > > > >    CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.3.0-rc6-next-20230411 #7
> > > > >    Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.14.0-2 04/01/2014
> > > > >    Call Trace:
> > > > >     <TASK>
> > > > >     dump_stack_lvl+0x77/0xc0
> > > > >     __lock_acquire+0xa65/0x2950
> > > > >     ? arch_stack_walk+0x65/0xf0
> > > > >     ? arch_stack_walk+0x65/0xf0
> > > > >     ? unwind_next_frame+0x602/0x8d0
> > > > >     lock_acquire+0xe0/0x300
> > > > >     ? ___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
> > > > >     ? find_usage_forwards+0x39/0x50
> > > > >     ? check_irq_usage+0x162/0xa70
> > > > >     ? __bfs+0x10c/0x2c0
> > > > >     _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4f/0x90
> > > > >     ? ___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
> > > > >     ___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
> > > > >     ? fill_pool+0x16b/0x2a0
> > > > >     ? look_up_lock_class+0x5d/0x160
> > > > >     ? register_lock_class+0x48/0x500
> > > > >     ? __lock_acquire+0xabc/0x2950
> > > > >     ? fill_pool+0x16b/0x2a0
> > > > >     kmem_cache_alloc+0x358/0x3b0
> > > > >     ? __lock_acquire+0xabc/0x2950
> > > > >     fill_pool+0x16b/0x2a0
> > > > >     ? __debug_object_init+0x292/0x560
> > > > >     ? lock_acquire+0xe0/0x300
> > > > >     ? cblist_init_generic+0x232/0x2d0
> > > > >     __debug_object_init+0x2c/0x560
>
>This "__debug_object_init" is because INIT_WORK() is called in
>cblist_init_generic(), so..
>
> > > > >     cblist_init_generic+0x147/0x2d0
> > > > >     rcu_init_tasks_generic+0x15/0x190
> > > > >     kernel_init_freeable+0x6e/0x3e0
> > > > >     ? rest_init+0x1e0/0x1e0
> > > > >     kernel_init+0x1b/0x1d0
> > > > >     ? rest_init+0x1e0/0x1e0
> > > > >     ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> > > > >     </TASK>
> > > > > 
> > > > > The fill_pool() can only be called in the !PREEMPT_RT kernel
> > > > > or in the preemptible context of the PREEMPT_RT kernel, so
> > > > > the above warning is not a real issue, but it's better to
> > > > > annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock to get
> > > > > rid of such issue.
> > > > 
> > > > + CC some RT and RCU people
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > AFAIK raw_spinlock is not just an annotation, but on RT it changes the
> > > > implementation from preemptible mutex to actual spin lock, so it would be
> > > 
> > > Yeah.
> > > 
> > > > rather unfortunate to do that for a spurious warning. Can it be somehow
> > > > fixed in a better way?
>
>... probably a better fix is to drop locks and call INIT_WORK(), or make
>the cblist_init_generic() lockless (or part lockless), given it's just
>initializing the cblist, it's probably doable. But I haven't taken a
>careful look yet.
>


This is just one of the paths that triggers an invalid wait,  the following paths can also trigger:

[  129.914547] [ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
[  129.914775] 6.3.0-rc1-yocto-standard+ #2 Not tainted
[  129.915044] -----------------------------
[  129.915272] kworker/2:0/28 is trying to lock:
[  129.915516] ffff88815660f570 (&c->lock){-.-.}-{3:3}, at: ___slab_alloc+0x68/0x12e0
[  129.915967] other info that might help us debug this:
[  129.916241] context-{5:5}
[  129.916392] 3 locks held by kworker/2:0/28:
[  129.916642]  #0: ffff888100084d48 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x515/0xba0
[  129.917145]  #1: ffff888100c17dd0 ((work_completion)(&(&krcp->monitor_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_on0
[  129.917758]  #2: ffff8881565f8508 (krc.lock){....}-{2:2}, at: kfree_rcu_monitor+0x29f/0x810
[  129.918207] stack backtrace:
[  129.918374] CPU: 2 PID: 28 Comm: kworker/2:0 Not tainted 6.3.0-rc1-yocto-standard+ #2
[  129.918784] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS rel-1.16.1-0-g3208b098f51a-prebuilt.qemu.o4
[  129.919397] Workqueue: events kfree_rcu_monitor
[  129.919662] Call Trace:
[  129.919812]  <TASK>
[  129.919941]  dump_stack_lvl+0x64/0xb0
[  129.920171]  dump_stack+0x10/0x20
[  129.920372]  __lock_acquire+0xeb8/0x3a80
[  129.920603]  ? ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50
[  129.920824]  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
[  129.921068]  ? unwind_next_frame.part.0+0x1ba/0x3c0
[  129.921343]  ? ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50
[  129.921573]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
[  129.921847]  lock_acquire+0x194/0x480
[  129.922060]  ? ___slab_alloc+0x68/0x12e0
[  129.922293]  ? __pfx_lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
[  129.922529]  ? __pfx_mark_lock.part.0+0x10/0x10
[  129.922778]  ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
[  129.922998]  ___slab_alloc+0x9a/0x12e0
[  129.923222]  ? ___slab_alloc+0x68/0x12e0
[  129.923452]  ? __pfx_mark_lock.part.0+0x10/0x10
[  129.923706]  ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
[  129.923937]  ? fill_pool+0x22a/0x370
[  129.924161]  ? __lock_acquire+0xf5b/0x3a80
[  129.924387]  ? fill_pool+0x22a/0x370
[  129.924590]  __slab_alloc.constprop.0+0x5b/0x90
[  129.924832]  kmem_cache_alloc+0x296/0x3d0
[  129.925073]  ? fill_pool+0x22a/0x370
[  129.925291]  fill_pool+0x22a/0x370
[  129.925495]  ? __pfx_fill_pool+0x10/0x10
[  129.925718]  ? __pfx___lock_acquire+0x10/0x10
[  129.926034]  ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
[  129.926269]  ? check_chain_key+0x200/0x2b0
[  129.926503]  __debug_object_init+0x82/0x8c0
[  129.926734]  ? __pfx_lock_release+0x10/0x10
[  129.926984]  ? __pfx___debug_object_init+0x10/0x10
[  129.927249]  ? __kasan_check_read+0x11/0x20
[  129.927498]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x9c/0x100
[  129.927758]  debug_object_activate+0x2d1/0x2f0
[  129.928022]  ? __pfx_debug_object_activate+0x10/0x10
[  129.928300]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
[  129.928583]  __call_rcu_common.constprop.0+0x94/0xeb0
[  129.928897]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
[  129.929186]  ? __pfx_rcu_work_rcufn+0x10/0x10
[  129.929459]  ? __pfx___call_rcu_common.constprop.0+0x10/0x10
[  129.929803]  ? __pfx_lock_acquired+0x10/0x10
[  129.930067]  ? __pfx_do_raw_spin_trylock+0x10/0x10
[  129.930363]  ? kfree_rcu_monitor+0x29f/0x810
[  129.930627]  call_rcu+0xe/0x20
[  129.930821]  queue_rcu_work+0x4f/0x60
[  129.931050]  kfree_rcu_monitor+0x5d3/0x810
[  129.931302]  ? __pfx_kfree_rcu_monitor+0x10/0x10
[  129.931587]  ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
[  129.931878]  process_one_work+0x607/0xba0
[  129.932129]  ? __pfx_process_one_work+0x10/0x10
[  129.932408]  ? worker_thread+0xd6/0x710
[  129.932653]  worker_thread+0x2d4/0x710
[  129.932888]  ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
[  129.933154]  kthread+0x18b/0x1c0
[  129.933363]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[  129.933598]  ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x50
[  129.933825]  </TASK>

Maybe no need to convert ->list_lock to raw_spinlock.

--- a/lib/debugobjects.c
+++ b/lib/debugobjects.c
@@ -562,10 +562,10 @@ __debug_object_init(void *addr, const struct debug_obj_descr *descr, int onstack
        unsigned long flags;

        /*
-        * On RT enabled kernels the pool refill must happen in preemptible
+        * The pool refill must happen in preemptible
         * context:
         */
-       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) || preemptible())
+       if (preemptible())
                fill_pool();

        db = get_bucket((unsigned long) addr);



Thanks
Zqiang

>
>
>Regards,
>Boqun
>
> > > 
> > > It's indeed unfortunate for the warning in the commit message. But
> > > functions like kmem_cache_alloc(GFP_ATOMIC) may indeed be called
> > > in the critical section of raw_spinlock or in the hardirq context, which
> > 
> > Hmm, I thought they may not, actually.
> > 
> > > will cause problem in the PREEMPT_RT kernel. So I still think it is
> > > reasonable to convert kmem_cache_node->list_lock to raw_spinlock type.
> > 
> > It wouldn't be the complete solution anyway. Once we allow even a GFP_ATOMIC
> > slab allocation for such context, it means also page allocation can happen
> > to refill the slabs, so lockdep will eventually complain about zone->lock,
> > and who knows what else.
> 
> Oh, indeed. :(
> 
> > 
> > > In addition, there are many fix patches for this kind of warning in the
> > > git log, so I also think there should be a general and better solution. :)
> > 
> > Maybe, but given above, I doubt it's this one.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Qi





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux