From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E6CC433FE for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 01:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D5D328D0002; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CE43A8D0001; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:41:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B5DCD8D0002; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:41:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0223.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.223]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DFB8D0001 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:41:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5479F5E6 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 01:41:01 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79172341122.24.E6644D7 Received: from lgeamrelo11.lge.com (lgeamrelo12.lge.com [156.147.23.52]) by imf10.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1171FC0002 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2022 01:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from unknown (HELO lgeamrelo02.lge.com) (156.147.1.126) by 156.147.23.52 with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2022 10:40:56 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Received: from unknown (HELO X58A-UD3R) (10.177.244.38) by 156.147.1.126 with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2022 10:40:56 +0900 X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.244.38 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:40:44 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Jan Kara Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, rostedt@goodmis.org, joel@joelfernandes.org, sashal@kernel.org, daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch, chris@chris-wilson.co.uk, duyuyang@gmail.com, johannes.berg@intel.com, tj@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, willy@infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com, amir73il@gmail.com, bfields@fieldses.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, kernel-team@lge.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, minchan@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, sj@kernel.org, jglisse@redhat.com, dennis@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, ngupta@vflare.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, paolo.valente@linaro.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.com, jlayton@kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, djwong@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, airlied@linux.ie, rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com, melissa.srw@gmail.com, hamohammed.sa@gmail.com Subject: Re: Report 1 in ext4 and journal based on v5.17-rc1 Message-ID: <20220223014044.GB26277@X58A-UD3R> References: <1645095472-26530-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1645096204-31670-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20220222082723.rddf4typah3wegrc@quack3.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220222082723.rddf4typah3wegrc@quack3.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Stat-Signature: zrzq9rn63hoyf4rn7rm65qroatnpdb3g X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf10.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf10.hostedemail.com: domain of byungchul.park@lge.com designates 156.147.23.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=byungchul.park@lge.com; dmarc=none X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 1171FC0002 X-HE-Tag: 1645580458-995426 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 09:27:23AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 17-02-22 20:10:03, Byungchul Park wrote: > > [ 7.009608] =================================================== > > [ 7.009613] DEPT: Circular dependency has been detected. > > [ 7.009614] 5.17.0-rc1-00014-g8a599299c0cb-dirty #30 Tainted: G W > > [ 7.009616] --------------------------------------------------- > > [ 7.009617] summary > > [ 7.009618] --------------------------------------------------- > > [ 7.009618] *** DEADLOCK *** > > [ 7.009618] > > [ 7.009619] context A > > [ 7.009619] [S] (unknown)(&(bit_wait_table + i)->dmap:0) > > [ 7.009621] [W] down_write(&ei->i_data_sem:0) > > [ 7.009623] [E] event(&(bit_wait_table + i)->dmap:0) > > [ 7.009624] > > [ 7.009625] context B > > [ 7.009625] [S] down_read(&ei->i_data_sem:0) > > [ 7.009626] [W] wait(&(bit_wait_table + i)->dmap:0) > > [ 7.009627] [E] up_read(&ei->i_data_sem:0) > > [ 7.009628] > > Looking into this I have noticed that Dept here tracks bitlocks (buffer > locks in particular) but it apparently treats locks on all buffers as one > locking class so it conflates lock on superblock buffer with a lock on > extent tree block buffer. These are wastly different locks with different > locking constraints. So to avoid false positives in filesystems we will > need to add annotations to differentiate locks on different buffers (based > on what the block is used for). Similarly how we e.g. annotate i_rwsem for Exactly yes. All synchronization objects should be classfied by what it is used for. Even though it's already classified by the location of the code initializing the object - roughly and normally saying we can expect those have the same constraint, we are actually assigning different constraints according to the subtle design esp. in file systems. It would also help the code have better documentation ;-) I'm willing to add annotations for that to fs. > different inodes. > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara > SUSE Labs, CR