3.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit 0fc0287c9ed1ffd3706f8b4d9b314aa102ef1245 upstream.
Juri hit the below lockdep report:
[ 4.303391] ======================================================
[ 4.303392] [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
[ 4.303394] 3.12.0-dl-peterz+ #144 Not tainted
[ 4.303395] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 4.303397] kworker/u4:3/689 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
[ 4.303399] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8114e63c>] new_slab+0x6c/0x290
[ 4.303417]
[ 4.303417] and this task is already holding:
[ 4.303418] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff812d2dfb>] blk_execute_rq_nowait+0x5b/0x100
[ 4.303431] which would create a new lock dependency:
[ 4.303432] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}
[ 4.303436]
[ 4.303898] the dependencies between the lock to be acquired and SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
[ 4.303918] -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...} ops: 2762 {
[ 4.303922] HARDIRQ-ON-W at:
[ 4.303923] [<ffffffff8108ab9a>] __lock_acquire+0x65a/0x1ff0
[ 4.303926] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
[ 4.303929] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
[ 4.303931] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 4.303933] SOFTIRQ-ON-W at:
[ 4.303933] [<ffffffff8108abcc>] __lock_acquire+0x68c/0x1ff0
[ 4.303935] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
[ 4.303940] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
[ 4.303955] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 4.303959] INITIAL USE at:
[ 4.303960] [<ffffffff8108a884>] __lock_acquire+0x344/0x1ff0
[ 4.303963] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
[ 4.303966] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
[ 4.303969] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 4.303972] }
Which reports that we take mems_allowed_seq with interrupts enabled. A
little digging found that this can only be from
cpuset_change_task_nodemask().
This is an actual deadlock because an interrupt doing an allocation will
hit get_mems_allowed()->...->__read_seqcount_begin(), which will spin
forever waiting for the write side to complete.
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/cpuset.c | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/cpuset.c
+++ b/kernel/cpuset.c
@@ -983,8 +983,10 @@ static void cpuset_change_task_nodemask(
need_loop = task_has_mempolicy(tsk) ||
!nodes_intersects(*newmems, tsk->mems_allowed);
- if (need_loop)
+ if (need_loop) {
+ local_irq_disable();
write_seqcount_begin(&tsk->mems_allowed_seq);
+ }
nodes_or(tsk->mems_allowed, tsk->mems_allowed, *newmems);
mpol_rebind_task(tsk, newmems, MPOL_REBIND_STEP1);
@@ -992,8 +994,10 @@ static void cpuset_change_task_nodemask(
mpol_rebind_task(tsk, newmems, MPOL_REBIND_STEP2);
tsk->mems_allowed = *newmems;
- if (need_loop)
+ if (need_loop) {
write_seqcount_end(&tsk->mems_allowed_seq);
+ local_irq_enable();
+ }
task_unlock(tsk);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html