[PATCH cgroup/for-3.15-fixes] blkcg: use trylock on blkcg_pol_mutex in blkcg_reset_stats()
From: Tejun Heo
Date: Mon May 05 2014 - 12:37:41 EST
During the recent conversion of cgroup to kernfs, cgroup_tree_mutex
which nests above both the kernfs s_active protection and cgroup_mutex
is added to synchronize cgroup file type operations as cgroup_mutex
needed to be grabbed from some file operations and thus can't be put
above s_active protection.
While this arrangement mostly worked for cgroup, this triggered the
following lockdep warning.
======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.15.0-rc3-next-20140430-sasha-00016-g4e281fa-dirty #429 Tainted: G W
-------------------------------------------------------
trinity-c173/9024 is trying to acquire lock:
(blkcg_pol_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: blkcg_reset_stats (include/linux/spinlock.h:328 block/blk-cgroup.c:455)
but task is already holding lock:
(s_active#89){++++.+}, at: kernfs_fop_write (fs/kernfs/file.c:283)
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (s_active#89){++++.+}:
lock_acquire (arch/x86/include/asm/current.h:14 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3602)
__kernfs_remove (arch/x86/include/asm/atomic.h:27 fs/kernfs/dir.c:352 fs/kernfs/dir.c:1024)
kernfs_remove_by_name_ns (fs/kernfs/dir.c:1219)
cgroup_addrm_files (include/linux/kernfs.h:427 kernel/cgroup.c:1074 kernel/cgroup.c:2899)
cgroup_clear_dir (kernel/cgroup.c:1092 (discriminator 2))
rebind_subsystems (kernel/cgroup.c:1144)
cgroup_setup_root (kernel/cgroup.c:1568)
cgroup_mount (kernel/cgroup.c:1716)
mount_fs (fs/super.c:1094)
vfs_kern_mount (fs/namespace.c:899)
do_mount (fs/namespace.c:2238 fs/namespace.c:2561)
SyS_mount (fs/namespace.c:2758 fs/namespace.c:2729)
tracesys (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:746)
-> #1 (cgroup_tree_mutex){+.+.+.}:
lock_acquire (arch/x86/include/asm/current.h:14 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3602)
mutex_lock_nested (kernel/locking/mutex.c:486 kernel/locking/mutex.c:587)
cgroup_add_cftypes (include/linux/list.h:76 kernel/cgroup.c:3040)
blkcg_policy_register (block/blk-cgroup.c:1106)
throtl_init (block/blk-throttle.c:1694)
do_one_initcall (init/main.c:789)
kernel_init_freeable (init/main.c:854 init/main.c:863 init/main.c:882 init/main.c:1003)
kernel_init (init/main.c:935)
ret_from_fork (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:552)
-> #0 (blkcg_pol_mutex){+.+.+.}:
__lock_acquire (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1840 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1945 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2131 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3182)
lock_acquire (arch/x86/include/asm/current.h:14 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3602)
mutex_lock_nested (kernel/locking/mutex.c:486 kernel/locking/mutex.c:587)
blkcg_reset_stats (include/linux/spinlock.h:328 block/blk-cgroup.c:455)
cgroup_file_write (kernel/cgroup.c:2714)
kernfs_fop_write (fs/kernfs/file.c:295)
vfs_write (fs/read_write.c:532)
SyS_write (fs/read_write.c:584 fs/read_write.c:576)
tracesys (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:746)
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
blkcg_pol_mutex --> cgroup_tree_mutex --> s_active#89
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(s_active#89);
lock(cgroup_tree_mutex);
lock(s_active#89);
lock(blkcg_pol_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
4 locks held by trinity-c173/9024:
#0: (&f->f_pos_lock){+.+.+.}, at: __fdget_pos (fs/file.c:714)
#1: (sb_writers#18){.+.+.+}, at: vfs_write (include/linux/fs.h:2255 fs/read_write.c:530)
#2: (&of->mutex){+.+.+.}, at: kernfs_fop_write (fs/kernfs/file.c:283)
#3: (s_active#89){++++.+}, at: kernfs_fop_write (fs/kernfs/file.c:283)
stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 9024 Comm: trinity-c173 Tainted: G W 3.15.0-rc3-next-20140430-sasha-00016-g4e281fa-dirty #429
ffffffff919687b0 ffff8805f6373bb8 ffffffff8e52cdbb 0000000000000002
ffffffff919d8400 ffff8805f6373c08 ffffffff8e51fb88 0000000000000004
ffff8805f6373c98 ffff8805f6373c08 ffff88061be70d98 ffff88061be70dd0
Call Trace:
dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52)
print_circular_bug (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1216)
__lock_acquire (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1840 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1945 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2131 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3182)
lock_acquire (arch/x86/include/asm/current.h:14 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3602)
mutex_lock_nested (kernel/locking/mutex.c:486 kernel/locking/mutex.c:587)
blkcg_reset_stats (include/linux/spinlock.h:328 block/blk-cgroup.c:455)
cgroup_file_write (kernel/cgroup.c:2714)
kernfs_fop_write (fs/kernfs/file.c:295)
vfs_write (fs/read_write.c:532)
SyS_write (fs/read_write.c:584 fs/read_write.c:576)
This is a highly unlikely but valid circular dependency between "echo
1 > blkcg.reset_stats" and cfq module [un]loading. cgroup is going
through further locking update which will remove this complication but
for now let's use trylock on blkcg_pol_mutex and retry the file
operation if the trylock fails.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: http://lkml.kernel.org/g/5363C04B.4010400@xxxxxxxxxx
---
block/blk-cgroup.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
index e4a4145..1039fb9 100644
--- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
+++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
@@ -451,7 +451,20 @@ static int blkcg_reset_stats(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
struct blkcg_gq *blkg;
int i;
- mutex_lock(&blkcg_pol_mutex);
+ /*
+ * XXX: We invoke cgroup_add/rm_cftypes() under blkcg_pol_mutex
+ * which ends up putting cgroup's internal cgroup_tree_mutex under
+ * it; however, cgroup_tree_mutex is nested above cgroup file
+ * active protection and grabbing blkcg_pol_mutex from a cgroup
+ * file operation creates a possible circular dependency. cgroup
+ * internal locking is planned to go through further simplification
+ * and this issue should go away soon. For now, let's trylock
+ * blkcg_pol_mutex and restart the write on failure.
+ *
+ * http://lkml.kernel.org/g/5363C04B.4010400@xxxxxxxxxx
+ */
+ if (!mutex_trylock(&blkcg_pol_mutex))
+ return restart_syscall();
spin_lock_irq(&blkcg->lock);
/*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/