summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/block/blk-cgroup.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorGui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>2010-02-01 09:58:54 +0100
committerJens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>2010-02-01 09:58:54 +0100
commitbcf4dd43424cdfd8195f3955300a579fe58e9911 (patch)
treead4f94fdb111dc624b58a6caa9ce45da64c910ee /block/blk-cgroup.c
parent9e9432c267e4047db98b9d4fba95099c6effcef9 (diff)
downloadlinux-bcf4dd43424cdfd8195f3955300a579fe58e9911.tar.gz
linux-bcf4dd43424cdfd8195f3955300a579fe58e9911.tar.bz2
linux-bcf4dd43424cdfd8195f3955300a579fe58e9911.zip
blk-cgroup: Fix potential deadlock in blk-cgroup
I triggered a lockdep warning as following. ======================================================= [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.33-rc2 #1 ------------------------------------------------------- test_io_control/7357 is trying to acquire lock: (blkio_list_lock){+.+...}, at: [<c053a990>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e but task is already holding lock: (&(&blkcg->lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<c053a949>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x3b/0x9e which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (&(&blkcg->lock)->rlock){......}: [<c04583b7>] validate_chain+0x8bc/0xb9c [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789 [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7 [<c0692b0a>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x27/0x5a [<c053a4e1>] blkiocg_add_blkio_group+0x1a/0x6d [<c053cac7>] cfq_get_queue+0x225/0x3de [<c053eec2>] cfq_set_request+0x217/0x42d [<c052c8a6>] elv_set_request+0x17/0x26 [<c0532a0f>] get_request+0x203/0x2c5 [<c0532ae9>] get_request_wait+0x18/0x10e [<c0533470>] __make_request+0x2ba/0x375 [<c0531985>] generic_make_request+0x28d/0x30f [<c0532da7>] submit_bio+0x8a/0x8f [<c04d827a>] submit_bh+0xf0/0x10f [<c04d91d2>] ll_rw_block+0xc0/0xf9 [<f86e9705>] ext3_find_entry+0x319/0x544 [ext3] [<f86eae58>] ext3_lookup+0x2c/0xb9 [ext3] [<c04c3e1b>] do_lookup+0xd3/0x172 [<c04c56c8>] link_path_walk+0x5fb/0x95c [<c04c5a65>] path_walk+0x3c/0x81 [<c04c5b63>] do_path_lookup+0x21/0x8a [<c04c66cc>] do_filp_open+0xf0/0x978 [<c04c0c7e>] open_exec+0x1b/0xb7 [<c04c1436>] do_execve+0xbb/0x266 [<c04081a9>] sys_execve+0x24/0x4a [<c04028a2>] ptregs_execve+0x12/0x18 -> #1 (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-.-.}: [<c04583b7>] validate_chain+0x8bc/0xb9c [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789 [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7 [<c0692b0a>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x27/0x5a [<c053dd2a>] cfq_unlink_blkio_group+0x17/0x41 [<c053a6eb>] blkiocg_destroy+0x72/0xc7 [<c0467df0>] cgroup_diput+0x4a/0xb2 [<c04ca473>] dentry_iput+0x93/0xb7 [<c04ca4b3>] d_kill+0x1c/0x36 [<c04cb5c5>] dput+0xf5/0xfe [<c04c6084>] do_rmdir+0x95/0xbe [<c04c60ec>] sys_rmdir+0x10/0x12 [<c04027cc>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32 -> #0 (blkio_list_lock){+.+...}: [<c0458117>] validate_chain+0x61c/0xb9c [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789 [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7 [<c06929fd>] _raw_spin_lock+0x1e/0x4e [<c053a990>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e [<c0467f1e>] cgroup_file_write+0xc6/0x1c0 [<c04bd2f3>] vfs_write+0x8c/0x116 [<c04bd7c6>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60 [<c04027cc>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32 other info that might help us debug this: 1 lock held by test_io_control/7357: #0: (&(&blkcg->lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<c053a949>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x3b/0x9e stack backtrace: Pid: 7357, comm: test_io_control Not tainted 2.6.33-rc2 #1 Call Trace: [<c045754f>] print_circular_bug+0x91/0x9d [<c0458117>] validate_chain+0x61c/0xb9c [<c0458dba>] __lock_acquire+0x723/0x789 [<c0458eb0>] lock_acquire+0x90/0xa7 [<c053a990>] ? blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e [<c06929fd>] _raw_spin_lock+0x1e/0x4e [<c053a990>] ? blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e [<c053a990>] blkiocg_weight_write+0x82/0x9e [<c0467f1e>] cgroup_file_write+0xc6/0x1c0 [<c0454df5>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0xd [<c044d93a>] ? cpu_clock+0x2e/0x44 [<c050e6ec>] ? security_file_permission+0xf/0x11 [<c04bcdda>] ? rw_verify_area+0x8a/0xad [<c0467e58>] ? cgroup_file_write+0x0/0x1c0 [<c04bd2f3>] vfs_write+0x8c/0x116 [<c04bd7c6>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60 [<c04027cc>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32 To prevent deadlock, we should take locks as following sequence: blkio_list_lock -> queue_lock -> blkcg_lock. The following patch should fix this bug. Signed-off-by: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'block/blk-cgroup.c')
-rw-r--r--block/blk-cgroup.c4
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index 1fa2654db0a6..e7dbbaf5fb3e 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -147,16 +147,16 @@ blkiocg_weight_write(struct cgroup *cgroup, struct cftype *cftype, u64 val)
return -EINVAL;
blkcg = cgroup_to_blkio_cgroup(cgroup);
+ spin_lock(&blkio_list_lock);
spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
blkcg->weight = (unsigned int)val;
hlist_for_each_entry(blkg, n, &blkcg->blkg_list, blkcg_node) {
- spin_lock(&blkio_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(blkiop, &blkio_list, list)
blkiop->ops.blkio_update_group_weight_fn(blkg,
blkcg->weight);
- spin_unlock(&blkio_list_lock);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
+ spin_unlock(&blkio_list_lock);
return 0;
}