On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:38:21PM -0000, tip-bot2 for Waiman Long wrote:
> The following commit has been merged into the locking/urgent branch of tip:
>
> Commit-ID: b058f2e4d0a70c060e21ed122b264e9649cad57f
> Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/b058f2e4d0a70c060e21ed122b264e9649cad57f
> Author: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> AuthorDate: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:31:18 -04:00
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> CommitterDate: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 09:56:46 +01:00
>
> locking/ww_mutex: Treat ww_mutex_lock() like a trylock
>
> It was found that running the ww_mutex_lock-torture test produced the
> following lockdep splat almost immediately:
>
> [ 103.892638] ======================================================
> [ 103.892639] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 103.892641] 5.12.0-rc3-debug+ #2 Tainted: G S W
> [ 103.892643] ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 103.892643] lock_torture_wr/3234 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 103.892646] ffffffffc0b35b10 (torture_ww_mutex_2.base){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: torture_ww_mutex_lock+0x316/0x720 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892660]
> [ 103.892660] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 103.892661] ffffffffc0b35cd0 (torture_ww_mutex_0.base){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: torture_ww_mutex_lock+0x3e2/0x720 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892669]
> [ 103.892669] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 103.892669]
> [ 103.892670]
> [ 103.892670] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 103.892671]
> [ 103.892671] -> #2 (torture_ww_mutex_0.base){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [ 103.892675] lock_acquire+0x1c5/0x830
> [ 103.892682] __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.15+0x1d1/0x2e50
> [ 103.892687] ww_mutex_lock+0x4b/0x180
> [ 103.892690] torture_ww_mutex_lock+0x316/0x720 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892694] lock_torture_writer+0x142/0x3a0 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892698] kthread+0x35f/0x430
> [ 103.892701] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [ 103.892706]
> [ 103.892706] -> #1 (torture_ww_mutex_1.base){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [ 103.892709] lock_acquire+0x1c5/0x830
> [ 103.892712] __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.15+0x1d1/0x2e50
> [ 103.892715] ww_mutex_lock+0x4b/0x180
> [ 103.892717] torture_ww_mutex_lock+0x316/0x720 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892721] lock_torture_writer+0x142/0x3a0 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892725] kthread+0x35f/0x430
> [ 103.892727] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [ 103.892730]
> [ 103.892730] -> #0 (torture_ww_mutex_2.base){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [ 103.892733] check_prevs_add+0x3fd/0x2470
> [ 103.892736] __lock_acquire+0x2602/0x3100
> [ 103.892738] lock_acquire+0x1c5/0x830
> [ 103.892740] __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.15+0x1d1/0x2e50
> [ 103.892743] ww_mutex_lock+0x4b/0x180
> [ 103.892746] torture_ww_mutex_lock+0x316/0x720 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892749] lock_torture_writer+0x142/0x3a0 [locktorture]
> [ 103.892753] kthread+0x35f/0x430
> [ 103.892755] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> [ 103.892757]
> [ 103.892757] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 103.892757]
> [ 103.892758] Chain exists of:
> [ 103.892758] torture_ww_mutex_2.base --> torture_ww_mutex_1.base --> torture_ww_mutex_0.base
> [ 103.892758]
> [ 103.892763] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 103.892763]
> [ 103.892764] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 103.892765] ---- ----
> [ 103.892765] lock(torture_ww_mutex_0.base);
> [ 103.892767] lock(torture_ww_mutex_1.base);
> [ 103.892770] lock(torture_ww_mutex_0.base);
> [ 103.892772] lock(torture_ww_mutex_2.base);
> [ 103.892774]
> [ 103.892774] *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> Since ww_mutex is supposed to be deadlock-proof if used properly, such
> deadlock scenario should not happen. To avoid this false positive splat,
> treat ww_mutex_lock() like a trylock().
>
> After applying this patch, the locktorture test can run for a long time
> without triggering the circular locking dependency splat.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@xxxxxxx>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316153119.13802-4-longman@xxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> kernel/locking/mutex.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 622ebdf..bb89393 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -946,7 +946,10 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, long state, unsigned int subclass,
> }
>
> preempt_disable();
> - mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, 0, nest_lock, ip);
> + /*
> + * Treat as trylock for ww_mutex.
> + */
> + mutex_acquire_nest(&lock->dep_map, subclass, !!ww_ctx, nest_lock, ip);
I'm confused... why isn't nest_lock working here?
For ww_mutex, we're supposed to have ctx->dep_map as a nest_lock, and
all lock acquisitions under a nest lock should be fine. Afaict the above
is just plain wrong.
|