The patch titled
Subject: lockdep: fix fs_reclaim warning
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
lockdep-fix-fs_reclaim-warning.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/lockdep-fix-fs_reclaim-warning.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/lockdep-fix-fs_reclaim-warning.patch
Before you just go and hit "reply", please:
a) Consider who else should be cc'ed
b) Prefer to cc a suitable mailing list as well
c) Ideally: find the original patch on the mailing list and do a
reply-to-all to that, adding suitable additional cc's
*** Remember to use Documentation/process/submit-checklist.rst when testing your code ***
The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
there every 3-4 working days
------------------------------------------------------
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: lockdep: fix fs_reclaim warning
Dave Jones reported fs_reclaim lockdep warnings.
============================================
WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
4.15.0-rc9-backup-debug+ #1 Not tainted
--------------------------------------------
sshd/24800 is trying to acquire lock:
(fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: [<0000000084f438c2>] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x5/0x30
but task is already holding lock:
(fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: [<0000000084f438c2>] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x5/0x30
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(fs_reclaim);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
2 locks held by sshd/24800:
#0: (sk_lock-AF_INET6){+.+.}, at: [<000000001a069652>] tcp_sendmsg+0x19/0x40
#1: (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: [<0000000084f438c2>] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x5/0x30
stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 24800 Comm: sshd Not tainted 4.15.0-rc9-backup-debug+ #1
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0xbc/0x13f
__lock_acquire+0xa09/0x2040
lock_acquire+0x12e/0x350
fs_reclaim_acquire.part.102+0x29/0x30
kmem_cache_alloc+0x3d/0x2c0
alloc_extent_state+0xa7/0x410
__clear_extent_bit+0x3ea/0x570
try_release_extent_mapping+0x21a/0x260
__btrfs_releasepage+0xb0/0x1c0
btrfs_releasepage+0x161/0x170
try_to_release_page+0x162/0x1c0
shrink_page_list+0x1d5a/0x2fb0
shrink_inactive_list+0x451/0x940
shrink_node_memcg.constprop.88+0x4c9/0x5e0
shrink_node+0x12d/0x260
try_to_free_pages+0x418/0xaf0
__alloc_pages_slowpath+0x976/0x1790
__alloc_pages_nodemask+0x52c/0x5c0
new_slab+0x374/0x3f0
___slab_alloc.constprop.81+0x47e/0x5a0
__slab_alloc.constprop.80+0x32/0x60
__kmalloc_track_caller+0x267/0x310
__kmalloc_reserve.isra.40+0x29/0x80
__alloc_skb+0xee/0x390
sk_stream_alloc_skb+0xb8/0x340
tcp_sendmsg_locked+0x8e6/0x1d30
tcp_sendmsg+0x27/0x40
inet_sendmsg+0xd0/0x310
sock_write_iter+0x17a/0x240
__vfs_write+0x2ab/0x380
vfs_write+0xfb/0x260
SyS_write+0xb6/0x140
do_syscall_64+0x1e5/0xc05
entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
This warning is caused by commit d92a8cfcb37ecd13 ("locking/lockdep:
Rework FS_RECLAIM annotation") which replaced
lockdep_set_current_reclaim_state()/ lockdep_clear_current_reclaim_state()
in __perform_reclaim() and lockdep_trace_alloc() in slab_pre_alloc_hook()
with fs_reclaim_acquire()/ fs_reclaim_release(). Since
__kmalloc_reserve() from __alloc_skb() adds __GFP_NOMEMALLOC |
__GFP_NOWARN to gfp_mask, and all reclaim path simply propagates
__GFP_NOMEMALLOC, fs_reclaim_acquire() in slab_pre_alloc_hook() is trying
to grab the 'fake' lock again when __perform_reclaim() already grabbed the
'fake' lock.
The
/* this guy won't enter reclaim */
if ((current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))
return false;
test which causes slab_pre_alloc_hook() to try to grab the 'fake' lock was
added by commit cf40bd16fdad42c0 ("lockdep: annotate reclaim context
(__GFP_NOFS)"). But that test is outdated because PF_MEMALLOC thread
won't enter reclaim regardless of __GFP_NOMEMALLOC after commit
341ce06f69abfafa ("page allocator: calculate the alloc_flags for
allocation only once") added the PF_MEMALLOC safeguard (
/* Avoid recursion of direct reclaim */
if (p->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
goto nopage;
in __alloc_pages_slowpath()).
Thus, let's fix outdated test by removing __GFP_NOMEMALLOC test and allow
__need_fs_reclaim() to return false.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/201802280650.FJC73911.FOSOMLJVFFQtHO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN mm/page_alloc.c~lockdep-fix-fs_reclaim-warning mm/page_alloc.c
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c~lockdep-fix-fs_reclaim-warning
+++ a/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3594,7 +3594,7 @@ static bool __need_fs_reclaim(gfp_t gfp_
return false;
/* this guy won't enter reclaim */
- if ((current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC) && !(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOMEMALLOC))
+ if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
return false;
/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from penguin-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx are
lockdep-fix-fs_reclaim-warning.patch
dentry-fix-kmemcheck-splat-at-take_dentry_name_snapshot.patch
mmvmscan-dont-pretend-forward-progress-upon-shrinker_rwsem-contention.patch
mmvmscan-mark-register_shrinker-as-__must_check.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
