From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/memory_hotplug: Fix remove_memory() lockdep splat
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 15:25:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <A5A31713-0D55-487C-814A-1415BB26DC1F@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0BE8F7EF-01DC-47BD-899B-11FB8B40EB0A@lca.pw>
> Am 11.01.2020 um 14:56 schrieb Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 11, 2020, at 6:03 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I just remember why I think this (and the previously reported done
>> for ACPI DIMMs) are false positives. The actual locking order is
>>
>> onlining/offlining from user space:
>>
>> kn->count -> device_hotplug_lock -> cpu_hotplug_lock -> mem_hotplug_lock
>>
>> memory removal:
>>
>> device_hotplug_lock -> cpu_hotplug_lock -> mem_hotplug_lock -> kn->count
>>
>>
>> This looks like a locking inversion - but it's not. Whenever we come via
>> user space we do a mutex_trylock(), which resolves this issue by backing
>> up. The device_hotplug_lock will prevent
>>
>> I have no clue why the device_hotplug_lock does not pop up in the
>> lockdep report here. Sounds wrong to me.
>>
>> I think this is a false positive and not stable material.
>
> The point is that there are other paths does kn->count —> cpu_hotplug_lock without needing device_hotplug_lock to race with memory removal.
>
> kmem_cache_shrink_all+0x50/0x100 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem/mem_hotplug_lock.rw_sem)
> shrink_store+0x34/0x60
> slab_attr_store+0x6c/0x170
> sysfs_kf_write+0x70/0xb0
> kernfs_fop_write+0x11c/0x270 ((kn->count)
> __vfs_write+0x3c/0x70
> vfs_write+0xcc/0x200
> ksys_write+0x7c/0x140
> system_call+0x5c/0x6
>
But not the lock of the memory devices, or am I missing something?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-11 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-10 21:22 Dan Williams
2020-01-10 22:33 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-10 23:29 ` Dan Williams
2020-01-11 11:03 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-11 13:55 ` Qian Cai
2020-01-11 14:25 ` David Hildenbrand [this message]
2020-01-11 14:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-01-11 17:41 ` Dan Williams
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=A5A31713-0D55-487C-814A-1415BB26DC1F@redhat.com \
--to=david@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cai@lca.pw \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox