The patch titled
Subject: mm/slub: fix a deadlock in show_slab_objects()
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects.patch
This patch should soon appear at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects.patch
and later at
http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects.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: Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx>
Subject: mm/slub: fix a deadlock in show_slab_objects()
Long time ago, there fixed a similar deadlock in show_slab_objects() [1].
However, it is apparently due to the commits like 01fb58bcba63 ("slab:
remove synchronous synchronize_sched() from memcg cache deactivation
path") and 03afc0e25f7f ("slab: get_online_mems for
kmem_cache_{create,destroy,shrink}"), this kind of deadlock is back by
just reading files in /sys/kernel/slab will generate a lockdep splat
below.
Since the "mem_hotplug_lock" here is only to obtain a stable online node
mask while racing with NUMA node hotplug, it is probably fine to do
without it.
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
------------------------------------------------------
cat/5224 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff900012ac3120 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at:
show_slab_objects+0x94/0x3a8
but task is already holding lock:
b8ff009693eee398 (kn->count#45){++++}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x44/0xf0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (kn->count#45){++++}:
lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360
__kernfs_remove+0x290/0x490
kernfs_remove+0x30/0x44
sysfs_remove_dir+0x70/0x88
kobject_del+0x50/0xb0
sysfs_slab_unlink+0x2c/0x38
shutdown_cache+0xa0/0xf0
kmemcg_cache_shutdown_fn+0x1c/0x34
kmemcg_workfn+0x44/0x64
process_one_work+0x4f4/0x950
worker_thread+0x390/0x4bc
kthread+0x1cc/0x1e8
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
-> #1 (slab_mutex){+.+.}:
lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360
__mutex_lock_common+0x16c/0xf78
mutex_lock_nested+0x40/0x50
memcg_create_kmem_cache+0x38/0x16c
memcg_kmem_cache_create_func+0x3c/0x70
process_one_work+0x4f4/0x950
worker_thread+0x390/0x4bc
kthread+0x1cc/0x1e8
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
-> #0 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
validate_chain+0xd10/0x2bcc
__lock_acquire+0x7f4/0xb8c
lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360
get_online_mems+0x54/0x150
show_slab_objects+0x94/0x3a8
total_objects_show+0x28/0x34
slab_attr_show+0x38/0x54
sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x198/0x2d4
kernfs_seq_show+0xa4/0xcc
seq_read+0x30c/0x8a8
kernfs_fop_read+0xa8/0x314
__vfs_read+0x88/0x20c
vfs_read+0xd8/0x10c
ksys_read+0xb0/0x120
__arm64_sys_read+0x54/0x88
el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240
el0_svc+0x8/0xc
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> slab_mutex --> kn->count#45
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(kn->count#45);
lock(slab_mutex);
lock(kn->count#45);
lock(mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by cat/5224:
#0: 9eff00095b14b2a0 (&p->lock){+.+.}, at: seq_read+0x4c/0x8a8
#1: 0eff008997041480 (&of->mutex){+.+.}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x34/0xf0
#2: b8ff009693eee398 (kn->count#45){++++}, at:
kernfs_seq_start+0x44/0xf0
stack backtrace:
Call trace:
dump_backtrace+0x0/0x248
show_stack+0x20/0x2c
dump_stack+0xd0/0x140
print_circular_bug+0x368/0x380
check_noncircular+0x248/0x250
validate_chain+0xd10/0x2bcc
__lock_acquire+0x7f4/0xb8c
lock_acquire+0x31c/0x360
get_online_mems+0x54/0x150
show_slab_objects+0x94/0x3a8
total_objects_show+0x28/0x34
slab_attr_show+0x38/0x54
sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x198/0x2d4
kernfs_seq_show+0xa4/0xcc
seq_read+0x30c/0x8a8
kernfs_fop_read+0xa8/0x314
__vfs_read+0x88/0x20c
vfs_read+0xd8/0x10c
ksys_read+0xb0/0x120
__arm64_sys_read+0x54/0x88
el0_svc_handler+0x170/0x240
el0_svc+0x8/0xc
[1] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1101.0/02850.html
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1570131869-2545-1-git-send-email-cai@xxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxx>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/slub.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/mm/slub.c~mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects
+++ a/mm/slub.c
@@ -4849,7 +4849,15 @@ static ssize_t show_slab_objects(struct
}
}
- get_online_mems();
+/*
+ * It is not possible to take "mem_hotplug_lock" here, as it has already held
+ * "kernfs_mutex" which could race with the lock order:
+ *
+ * mem_hotplug_lock->slab_mutex->kernfs_mutex
+ *
+ * In the worest case, it might be mis-calculated while doing NUMA node
+ * hotplug, but it shall be corrected by later reads of the same files.
+ */
#ifdef CONFIG_SLUB_DEBUG
if (flags & SO_ALL) {
struct kmem_cache_node *n;
@@ -4890,7 +4898,6 @@ static ssize_t show_slab_objects(struct
x += sprintf(buf + x, " N%d=%lu",
node, nodes[node]);
#endif
- put_online_mems();
kfree(nodes);
return x + sprintf(buf + x, "\n");
}
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from cai@xxxxxx are
mm-page_alloc-fix-a-crash-in-free_pages_prepare.patch
mm-slub-fix-a-deadlock-in-show_slab_objects.patch
