From 6dcde60efd946e38fac8d276a6ca47492103e856 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 09:33:11 -0700 Subject: xfs: more lockdep whackamole with kmem_alloc* Dave Airlie reported the following lockdep complaint: > ====================================================== > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 5.7.0-0.rc5.20200515git1ae7efb38854.1.fc33.x86_64 #1 Not tainted > ------------------------------------------------------ > kswapd0/159 is trying to acquire lock: > ffff9b38d01a4470 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, > at: xfs_ilock+0xde/0x2c0 [xfs] > > but task is already holding lock: > ffffffffbbb8bd00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: > __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}: > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x34/0x40 > __kmalloc+0x4f/0x270 > kmem_alloc+0x93/0x1d0 [xfs] > kmem_alloc_large+0x4c/0x130 [xfs] > xfs_attr_copy_value+0x74/0xa0 [xfs] > xfs_attr_get+0x9d/0xc0 [xfs] > xfs_get_acl+0xb6/0x200 [xfs] > get_acl+0x81/0x160 > posix_acl_xattr_get+0x3f/0xd0 > vfs_getxattr+0x148/0x170 > getxattr+0xa7/0x240 > path_getxattr+0x52/0x80 > do_syscall_64+0x5c/0xa0 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xb3 > > -> #0 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}: > __lock_acquire+0x1257/0x20d0 > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x310 > down_write_nested+0x49/0x120 > xfs_ilock+0xde/0x2c0 [xfs] > xfs_reclaim_inode+0x3f/0x400 [xfs] > xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x20b/0x410 [xfs] > xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x31/0x40 [xfs] > super_cache_scan+0x190/0x1e0 > do_shrink_slab+0x184/0x420 > shrink_slab+0x182/0x290 > shrink_node+0x174/0x680 > balance_pgdat+0x2d0/0x5f0 > kswapd+0x21f/0x510 > kthread+0x131/0x150 > ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(fs_reclaim); > lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class); > lock(fs_reclaim); > lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 4 locks held by kswapd0/159: > #0: ffffffffbbb8bd00 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: > __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x5/0x30 > #1: ffffffffbbb7cef8 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}-{3:3}, at: > shrink_slab+0x115/0x290 > #2: ffff9b39f07a50e8 > (&type->s_umount_key#56){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x38/0x1e0 > #3: ffff9b39f077f258 > (&pag->pag_ici_reclaim_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: > xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x82/0x410 [xfs] This is a known false positive because inodes cannot simultaneously be getting reclaimed and the target of a getxattr operation, but lockdep doesn't know that. We can (selectively) shut up lockdep until either it gets smarter or we change inode reclaim not to require the ILOCK by applying a stupid GFP_NOLOCKDEP bandaid. Reported-by: Dave Airlie Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong Tested-by: Dave Airlie Reviewed-by: Brian Foster --- fs/xfs/kmem.h | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'fs/xfs/kmem.h') diff --git a/fs/xfs/kmem.h b/fs/xfs/kmem.h index fc87ea9f6843..34cbcfde9228 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/kmem.h +++ b/fs/xfs/kmem.h @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ typedef unsigned __bitwise xfs_km_flags_t; #define KM_NOFS ((__force xfs_km_flags_t)0x0004u) #define KM_MAYFAIL ((__force xfs_km_flags_t)0x0008u) #define KM_ZERO ((__force xfs_km_flags_t)0x0010u) +#define KM_NOLOCKDEP ((__force xfs_km_flags_t)0x0020u) /* * We use a special process flag to avoid recursive callbacks into @@ -30,7 +31,7 @@ kmem_flags_convert(xfs_km_flags_t flags) { gfp_t lflags; - BUG_ON(flags & ~(KM_NOFS|KM_MAYFAIL|KM_ZERO)); + BUG_ON(flags & ~(KM_NOFS | KM_MAYFAIL | KM_ZERO | KM_NOLOCKDEP)); lflags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN; if (flags & KM_NOFS) @@ -49,6 +50,9 @@ kmem_flags_convert(xfs_km_flags_t flags) if (flags & KM_ZERO) lflags |= __GFP_ZERO; + if (flags & KM_NOLOCKDEP) + lflags |= __GFP_NOLOCKDEP; + return lflags; } -- cgit v1.2.3