The patch titled Subject: mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy() has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was mm-slab-release-slab_mutex-earlier-in-kmem_cache_destroy.patch This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree ------------------------------------------------------ From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> Subject: mm, slab: release slab_mutex earlier in kmem_cache_destroy() Commit 1331e7a1bbe1 ("rcu: Remove _rcu_barrier() dependency on __stop_machine()") introduced slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug.lock dependency through kmem_cache_destroy() -> rcu_barrier() -> _rcu_barrier() -> get_online_cpus(). Lockdep thinks that this might actually result in ABBA deadlock, and reports it as below: === [ cut here ] === ====================================================== [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 3.6.0-rc5-00004-g0d8ee37 #143 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------- kworker/u:2/40 is trying to acquire lock: (rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff810f2126>] _rcu_barrier+0x26/0x1e0 but task is already holding lock: (slab_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81176e15>] kmem_cache_destroy+0x45/0xe0 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (slab_mutex){+.+.+.}: [<ffffffff810ae1e2>] validate_chain+0x632/0x720 [<ffffffff810ae5d9>] __lock_acquire+0x309/0x530 [<ffffffff810ae921>] lock_acquire+0x121/0x190 [<ffffffff8155d4cc>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x450 [<ffffffff8155d9ee>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50 [<ffffffff81558cb5>] cpuup_callback+0x2f/0xbe [<ffffffff81564b83>] notifier_call_chain+0x93/0x140 [<ffffffff81076f89>] __raw_notifier_call_chain+0x9/0x10 [<ffffffff8155719d>] _cpu_up+0xba/0x14e [<ffffffff815572ed>] cpu_up+0xbc/0x117 [<ffffffff81ae05e3>] smp_init+0x6b/0x9f [<ffffffff81ac47d6>] kernel_init+0x147/0x1dc [<ffffffff8156ab44>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 -> #1 (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}: [<ffffffff810ae1e2>] validate_chain+0x632/0x720 [<ffffffff810ae5d9>] __lock_acquire+0x309/0x530 [<ffffffff810ae921>] lock_acquire+0x121/0x190 [<ffffffff8155d4cc>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x450 [<ffffffff8155d9ee>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50 [<ffffffff81049197>] get_online_cpus+0x37/0x50 [<ffffffff810f21bb>] _rcu_barrier+0xbb/0x1e0 [<ffffffff810f22f0>] rcu_barrier_sched+0x10/0x20 [<ffffffff810f2309>] rcu_barrier+0x9/0x10 [<ffffffff8118c129>] deactivate_locked_super+0x49/0x90 [<ffffffff8118cc01>] deactivate_super+0x61/0x70 [<ffffffff811aaaa7>] mntput_no_expire+0x127/0x180 [<ffffffff811ab49e>] sys_umount+0x6e/0xd0 [<ffffffff81569979>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b -> #0 (rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex){+.+...}: [<ffffffff810adb4e>] check_prev_add+0x3de/0x440 [<ffffffff810ae1e2>] validate_chain+0x632/0x720 [<ffffffff810ae5d9>] __lock_acquire+0x309/0x530 [<ffffffff810ae921>] lock_acquire+0x121/0x190 [<ffffffff8155d4cc>] __mutex_lock_common+0x5c/0x450 [<ffffffff8155d9ee>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50 [<ffffffff810f2126>] _rcu_barrier+0x26/0x1e0 [<ffffffff810f22f0>] rcu_barrier_sched+0x10/0x20 [<ffffffff810f2309>] rcu_barrier+0x9/0x10 [<ffffffff81176ea1>] kmem_cache_destroy+0xd1/0xe0 [<ffffffffa04c3154>] nf_conntrack_cleanup_net+0xe4/0x110 [nf_conntrack] [<ffffffffa04c31aa>] nf_conntrack_cleanup+0x2a/0x70 [nf_conntrack] [<ffffffffa04c42ce>] nf_conntrack_net_exit+0x5e/0x80 [nf_conntrack] [<ffffffff81454b79>] ops_exit_list+0x39/0x60 [<ffffffff814551ab>] cleanup_net+0xfb/0x1b0 [<ffffffff8106917b>] process_one_work+0x26b/0x4c0 [<ffffffff81069f3e>] worker_thread+0x12e/0x320 [<ffffffff8106f73e>] kthread+0x9e/0xb0 [<ffffffff8156ab44>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex --> cpu_hotplug.lock --> slab_mutex Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(slab_mutex); lock(cpu_hotplug.lock); lock(slab_mutex); lock(rcu_sched_state.barrier_mutex); *** DEADLOCK *** === [ cut here ] === This is actually a false positive. Lockdep has no way of knowing the fact that the ABBA can actually never happen, because of special semantics of cpu_hotplug.refcount and its handling in cpu_hotplug_begin(); the mutual exclusion there is not achieved through mutex, but through cpu_hotplug.refcount. The "neither cpu_up() nor cpu_down() will proceed past cpu_hotplug_begin() until everyone who called get_online_cpus() will call put_online_cpus()" semantics is totally invisible to lockdep. This patch therefore moves the unlock of slab_mutex so that rcu_barrier() is being called with it unlocked. It has two advantages: - it slightly reduces hold time of slab_mutex; as it's used to protect the cachep list, it's not necessary to hold it over kmem_cache_free() call any more - it silences the lockdep false positive warning, as it avoids lockdep ever learning about slab_mutex -> cpu_hotplug.lock dependency Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- mm/slab_common.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -puN mm/slab_common.c~mm-slab-release-slab_mutex-earlier-in-kmem_cache_destroy mm/slab_common.c --- a/mm/slab_common.c~mm-slab-release-slab_mutex-earlier-in-kmem_cache_destroy +++ a/mm/slab_common.c @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cach list_del(&s->list); if (!__kmem_cache_shutdown(s)) { + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex); if (s->flags & SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU) rcu_barrier(); @@ -175,12 +176,14 @@ void kmem_cache_destroy(struct kmem_cach kmem_cache_free(kmem_cache, s); } else { list_add(&s->list, &slab_caches); + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex); printk(KERN_ERR "kmem_cache_destroy %s: Slab cache still has objects\n", s->name); dump_stack(); } + } else { + mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex); } - mutex_unlock(&slab_mutex); put_online_cpus(); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_destroy); _ Patches currently in -mm which might be from jkosina@xxxxxxx are linux-next.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