The patch titled Subject: compact_pgdat: workaround lockdep warning in kswapd has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was compact_pgdat-workaround-lockdep-warning-in-kswapd.patch This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree The current -mm tree may be found at http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/ ------------------------------------------------------ From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> Subject: compact_pgdat: workaround lockdep warning in kswapd I get this lockdep warning from swapping load on linux-next, due to "vmscan: kswapd carefully call compaction". ================================= [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] 3.3.0-rc2-next-20120201 #5 Not tainted --------------------------------- inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. kswapd0/28 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: (pcpu_alloc_mutex){+.+.?.}, at: [<ffffffff810d6684>] pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325 {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at: [<ffffffff81099b75>] mark_held_locks+0xd7/0x103 [<ffffffff8109a13c>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x85/0x9e [<ffffffff810f6bdc>] __kmalloc+0x6c/0x14b [<ffffffff810d57fd>] pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x59/0x62 [<ffffffff810d5d16>] pcpu_extend_area_map+0x26/0xb1 [<ffffffff810d679f>] pcpu_alloc+0x182/0x325 [<ffffffff810d694d>] __alloc_percpu+0xb/0xd [<ffffffff8142ebfd>] snmp_mib_init+0x1e/0x2e [<ffffffff8185cd8d>] ipv4_mib_init_net+0x7a/0x184 [<ffffffff813dc963>] ops_init.clone.0+0x6b/0x73 [<ffffffff813dc9cc>] register_pernet_operations+0x61/0xa0 [<ffffffff813dca8e>] register_pernet_subsys+0x29/0x42 [<ffffffff8185d044>] inet_init+0x1ad/0x252 [<ffffffff810002e3>] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x12f [<ffffffff81832bc5>] kernel_init+0x9d/0x11e [<ffffffff814e51e4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 irq event stamp: 656613 hardirqs last enabled at (656613): [<ffffffff814e0ddc>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x104/0x128 hardirqs last disabled at (656612): [<ffffffff814e0d34>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x5c/0x128 softirqs last enabled at (655568): [<ffffffff8105b4a5>] __do_softirq+0x120/0x136 softirqs last disabled at (654757): [<ffffffff814e52dc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(pcpu_alloc_mutex); <Interrupt> lock(pcpu_alloc_mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** no locks held by kswapd0/28. stack backtrace: Pid: 28, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 3.3.0-rc2-next-20120201 #5 Call Trace: [<ffffffff810981f4>] print_usage_bug+0x1bf/0x1d0 [<ffffffff81096c3e>] ? print_irq_inversion_bug+0x1d9/0x1d9 [<ffffffff810982c0>] mark_lock_irq+0xbb/0x22e [<ffffffff810c5399>] ? free_hot_cold_page+0x13d/0x14f [<ffffffff81098684>] mark_lock+0x251/0x331 [<ffffffff81098893>] mark_irqflags+0x12f/0x141 [<ffffffff81098e32>] __lock_acquire+0x58d/0x753 [<ffffffff810d6684>] ? pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325 [<ffffffff81099433>] lock_acquire+0x54/0x6a [<ffffffff810d6684>] ? pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325 [<ffffffff8107a5b8>] ? add_preempt_count+0xa9/0xae [<ffffffff814e0a21>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5e/0x315 [<ffffffff810d6684>] ? pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325 [<ffffffff81098f81>] ? __lock_acquire+0x6dc/0x753 [<ffffffff810c9fb0>] ? __pagevec_release+0x2c/0x2c [<ffffffff810d6684>] pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325 [<ffffffff810c9fb0>] ? __pagevec_release+0x2c/0x2c [<ffffffff810d694d>] __alloc_percpu+0xb/0xd [<ffffffff8106c35e>] schedule_on_each_cpu+0x23/0x110 [<ffffffff810c9fcb>] lru_add_drain_all+0x10/0x12 [<ffffffff810f126f>] __compact_pgdat+0x20/0x182 [<ffffffff810f15c2>] compact_pgdat+0x27/0x29 [<ffffffff810c306b>] ? zone_watermark_ok+0x1a/0x1c [<ffffffff810cdf6f>] balance_pgdat+0x732/0x751 [<ffffffff810ce0ed>] kswapd+0x15f/0x178 [<ffffffff810cdf8e>] ? balance_pgdat+0x751/0x751 [<ffffffff8106fd11>] kthread+0x84/0x8c [<ffffffff814e51e4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [<ffffffff810787ed>] ? finish_task_switch+0x85/0xea [<ffffffff814e3861>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe [<ffffffff8106fc8d>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x56/0x56 [<ffffffff814e51e0>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb The RECLAIM_FS notations indicate that it's doing the GFP_FS checking that Nick hacked into lockdep a while back: I think we're intended to read that "<Interrupt>" in the DEADLOCK scenario as "<Direct reclaim>". I'm hazy, I have not reached any conclusion as to whether it's right to complain or not; but I believe it's uneasy about kswapd now doing the mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex) which lru_add_drain_all() entails. Nor have I reached any conclusion as to whether it's important for kswapd to do that draining or not. But so as not to get blocked on this, with lockdep disabled from giving further reports, here's a patch which removes the lru_add_drain_all() from kswapd's callpath (and calls it only once from compact_nodes(), instead of once per node). Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- mm/compaction.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff -puN mm/compaction.c~compact_pgdat-workaround-lockdep-warning-in-kswapd mm/compaction.c --- a/mm/compaction.c~compact_pgdat-workaround-lockdep-warning-in-kswapd +++ a/mm/compaction.c @@ -680,9 +680,6 @@ static int __compact_pgdat(pg_data_t *pg int zoneid; struct zone *zone; - /* Flush pending updates to the LRU lists */ - lru_add_drain_all(); - for (zoneid = 0; zoneid < MAX_NR_ZONES; zoneid++) { zone = &pgdat->node_zones[zoneid]; @@ -727,17 +724,12 @@ int compact_pgdat(pg_data_t *pgdat, int static int compact_node(int nid) { - pg_data_t *pgdat; struct compact_control cc = { .order = -1, .sync = true, }; - if (nid < 0 || nid >= nr_node_ids || !node_online(nid)) - return -EINVAL; - pgdat = NODE_DATA(nid); - - return __compact_pgdat(pgdat, &cc); + return __compact_pgdat(NODE_DATA(nid), &cc); } /* Compact all nodes in the system */ @@ -745,6 +737,9 @@ static int compact_nodes(void) { int nid; + /* Flush pending updates to the LRU lists */ + lru_add_drain_all(); + for_each_online_node(nid) compact_node(nid); @@ -777,7 +772,14 @@ ssize_t sysfs_compact_node(struct device struct device_attribute *attr, const char *buf, size_t count) { - compact_node(dev->id); + int nid = dev->id; + + if (nid >= 0 && nid < nr_node_ids && node_online(nid)) { + /* Flush pending updates to the LRU lists */ + lru_add_drain_all(); + + compact_node(nid); + } return count; } _ Patches currently in -mm which might be from hughd@xxxxxxxxxx are origin.patch linux-next.patch mm-hugetlb-cleanup-duplicated-code-in-unmapping-vm-range.patch radix-tree-introduce-bit-optimized-iterator.patch radix-tree-introduce-bit-optimized-iterator-v3.patch radix-tree-introduce-bit-optimized-iterator-v3-fix.patch radix-tree-rewrite-gang-lookup-with-using-iterator.patch radix-tree-use-iterators-in-find_get_pages-functions.patch prio_tree-debugging-patch.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