On 2023/4/12 13:51, Boqun Feng wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:25:06PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
On 2023/4/11 22:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 4/11/23 16:08, Qi Zheng wrote:
On 2023/4/11 21:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
On 4/11/23 15:08, Qi Zheng wrote:
The list_lock can be held in the critical section of
raw_spinlock, and then lockdep will complain about it
like below:
=============================
[ BUG: Invalid wait context ]
6.3.0-rc6-next-20230411 #7 Not tainted
-----------------------------
swapper/0/1 is trying to lock:
ffff888100055418 (&n->list_lock){....}-{3:3}, at: ___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
other info that might help us debug this:
context-{5:5}
2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
#0: ffffffff824e8160 (rcu_tasks.cbs_gbl_lock){....}-{2:2}, at: cblist_init_generic+0x22/0x2d0
#1: ffff888136bede50 (&ACCESS_PRIVATE(rtpcp, lock)){....}-{2:2}, at: cblist_init_generic+0x232/0x2d0
stack backtrace:
CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.3.0-rc6-next-20230411 #7
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.14.0-2 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
<TASK>
dump_stack_lvl+0x77/0xc0
__lock_acquire+0xa65/0x2950
? arch_stack_walk+0x65/0xf0
? arch_stack_walk+0x65/0xf0
? unwind_next_frame+0x602/0x8d0
lock_acquire+0xe0/0x300
? ___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
? find_usage_forwards+0x39/0x50
? check_irq_usage+0x162/0xa70
? __bfs+0x10c/0x2c0
_raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4f/0x90
? ___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
___slab_alloc+0x73d/0x1330
? fill_pool+0x16b/0x2a0
? look_up_lock_class+0x5d/0x160
? register_lock_class+0x48/0x500
? __lock_acquire+0xabc/0x2950
? fill_pool+0x16b/0x2a0
kmem_cache_alloc+0x358/0x3b0
? __lock_acquire+0xabc/0x2950
fill_pool+0x16b/0x2a0
? __debug_object_init+0x292/0x560
? lock_acquire+0xe0/0x300
? cblist_init_generic+0x232/0x2d0
__debug_object_init+0x2c/0x560
This "__debug_object_init" is because INIT_WORK() is called in
cblist_init_generic(), so..
Yes, a more precise call stack is as follows:
cblist_init_generic
--> INIT_WORK
--> lockdep_init_map
--> lockdep_init_map_type
--> register_lock_class
--> init_data_structures_once
--> init_rcu_head
--> debug_object_init
--> __debug_object_init
cblist_init_generic+0x147/0x2d0
rcu_init_tasks_generic+0x15/0x190
kernel_init_freeable+0x6e/0x3e0
? rest_init+0x1e0/0x1e0
kernel_init+0x1b/0x1d0
? rest_init+0x1e0/0x1e0
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
</TASK>
The fill_pool() can only be called in the !PREEMPT_RT kernel
or in the preemptible context of the PREEMPT_RT kernel, so
the above warning is not a real issue, but it's better to
annotate kmem_cache_node->list_lock as raw_spinlock to get
rid of such issue.
+ CC some RT and RCU people
Thanks.
AFAIK raw_spinlock is not just an annotation, but on RT it changes the
implementation from preemptible mutex to actual spin lock, so it would be
Yeah.
rather unfortunate to do that for a spurious warning. Can it be somehow
fixed in a better way?
... probably a better fix is to drop locks and call INIT_WORK(), or make
the cblist_init_generic() lockless (or part lockless), given it's just
initializing the cblist, it's probably doable. But I haven't taken a
careful look yet.
This might be a doable solution for this warning, but I also saw another
stacks like the following on v5.15:
[ 30.349171] Call Trace:
[ 30.349171] <TASK>
[ 30.349171] dump_stack_lvl+0x69/0x97
[ 30.349171] __lock_acquire+0x4a0/0x1aa0
[ 30.349171] lock_acquire+0x275/0x2e0
[ 30.349171] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x4c/0x90
[ 30.349171] ___slab_alloc.constprop.95+0x3ea/0xa80
[ 30.349171] __slab_alloc.isra.89.constprop.94+0x1c/0x30
[ 30.349171] kmem_cache_alloc+0x2bd/0x320
[ 30.349171] fill_pool+0x1b2/0x2d0
[ 30.349171] __debug_object_init+0x2c/0x500
[ 30.349171] debug_object_activate+0x136/0x200
[ 30.349171] add_timer+0x10b/0x170
[ 30.349171] queue_delayed_work_on+0x63/0xa0
[ 30.349171] init_mm_internals+0x226/0x2b0
[ 30.349171] kernel_init_freeable+0x82/0x24e
[ 30.349171] kernel_init+0x17/0x140
[ 30.349171] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
[ 30.349171] </TASK>
So I'm a bit confused whether to fix individual cases or should there be
a general solution.
Thanks,
Qi
Regards,
Boqun
It's indeed unfortunate for the warning in the commit message. But
functions like kmem_cache_alloc(GFP_ATOMIC) may indeed be called
in the critical section of raw_spinlock or in the hardirq context, which
Hmm, I thought they may not, actually.
will cause problem in the PREEMPT_RT kernel. So I still think it is
reasonable to convert kmem_cache_node->list_lock to raw_spinlock type.
It wouldn't be the complete solution anyway. Once we allow even a GFP_ATOMIC
slab allocation for such context, it means also page allocation can happen
to refill the slabs, so lockdep will eventually complain about zone->lock,
and who knows what else.
Oh, indeed. :(
In addition, there are many fix patches for this kind of warning in the
git log, so I also think there should be a general and better solution. :)
Maybe, but given above, I doubt it's this one.
--
Thanks,
Qi
--
Thanks,
Qi
