From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-f198.google.com (mail-pf1-f198.google.com [209.85.210.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD848E0038 for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 03:44:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pf1-f198.google.com with SMTP id e89so4739077pfb.17 for ; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:44:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org. [2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m1si70823767pfi.286.2019.01.09.00.44.44 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:44:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 09:44:41 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: lockdep warning while reading sysfs Message-ID: <20190109084441.GF1900@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <2c9aaa31-d0b7-bc20-f109-751a2fccfb88@lca.pw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2c9aaa31-d0b7-bc20-f109-751a2fccfb88@lca.pw> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Qian Cai Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, tj@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:43:19PM -0500, Qian Cai wrote: > ====================================================== > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 5.0.0-rc1+ #60 Not tainted > ------------------------------------------------------ > read_all/7952 is trying to acquire lock: > 0000000019f12603 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: show_slab_objects+0x16c/0x450 > > but task is already holding lock: > 000000008804717f (kn->count#69){++++}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x79/0x170 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #3 (kn->count#69){++++}: > __lock_acquire+0x728/0x1200 > lock_acquire+0x269/0x5a0 > __kernfs_remove+0x72f/0x9a0 > kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x45/0x90 > sysfs_remove_link+0x3c/0xa0 > sysfs_slab_add+0x1bd/0x330 > __kmem_cache_create+0x166/0x1c0 > create_cache+0xcf/0x1f0 > kmem_cache_create_usercopy+0x1aa/0x270 > kmem_cache_create+0x16/0x20 > mlx5_init_fs+0x195/0x1a10 [mlx5_core] > mlx5_load_one+0x1106/0x1e90 [mlx5_core] > init_one+0x864/0xd60 [mlx5_core] > local_pci_probe+0xda/0x190 > work_for_cpu_fn+0x56/0xa0 > process_one_work+0xad7/0x1b80 > worker_thread+0x8ff/0x1370 > kthread+0x32c/0x3f0 > ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50 > > -> #2 (slab_mutex){+.+.}: > __lock_acquire+0x728/0x1200 > lock_acquire+0x269/0x5a0 > __mutex_lock+0x168/0x1730 > mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20 > kmem_cache_create_usercopy+0x45/0x270 > kmem_cache_create+0x16/0x20 > ptlock_cache_init+0x24/0x2d > start_kernel+0x40e/0x7e0 > x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26 > x86_64_start_kernel+0xef/0xf6 > secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0 > > -> #1 (memcg_cache_ids_sem){++++}: > ptlock_cache_init+0x24/0x2d > start_kernel+0x40e/0x7e0 > x86_64_start_reservations+0x24/0x26 > x86_64_start_kernel+0xef/0xf6 > secondary_startup_64+0xb6/0xc0 > > -> #0 (mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}: > validate_chain.isra.14+0x11af/0x3b50 > __lock_acquire+0x728/0x1200 > lock_acquire+0x269/0x5a0 > get_online_mems+0x3d/0x80 > show_slab_objects+0x16c/0x450 > total_objects_show+0x13/0x20 > slab_attr_show+0x1e/0x30 > sysfs_kf_seq_show+0x1d5/0x470 > kernfs_seq_show+0x1fa/0x2c0 > seq_read+0x3f7/0x1050 > kernfs_fop_read+0x126/0x650 > __vfs_read+0xeb/0xf20 > vfs_read+0x103/0x290 > ksys_read+0xfa/0x260 > __x64_sys_read+0x73/0xb0 > do_syscall_64+0x18f/0xd23 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Chain exists of: > mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> slab_mutex --> kn->count#69 > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(kn->count#69); > lock(slab_mutex); > lock(kn->count#69); > lock(mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem); > > > 3 locks held by read_all/7952: > #0: 0000000005c4ddec (&p->lock){+.+.}, at: seq_read+0x6b/0x1050 > #1: 00000000c2f2e854 (&of->mutex){+.+.}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x4f/0x170 > #2: 000000008804717f (kn->count#69){++++}, at: kernfs_seq_start+0x79/0x170 > > You stripped out the stack trace at the bottom that shows the inversion :/