public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
	Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	Nadav Amit <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected],
	LKML <[email protected]>,
	Alexander Viro <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Lockdep warning on io_file_data_ref_zero() with 5.10-rc5
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:58:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

hi,

> On 11/28/20 5:13 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 28/11/2020 23:59, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> Hello Pavel,
>>>
>>> I got the following lockdep splat while rebasing my work on 5.10-rc5 on the
>>> kernel (based on 5.10-rc5+).
>>>
>>> I did not actually confirm that the problem is triggered without my changes,
>>> as my iouring workload requires some kernel changes (not iouring changes),
>>> yet IMHO it seems pretty clear that this is a result of your commit
>>> e297822b20e7f ("io_uring: order refnode recycling”), that acquires a lock in
>>> io_file_data_ref_zero() inside a softirq context.
>>
>> Yeah, that's true. It was already reported by syzkaller and fixed by Jens, but
>> queued for 5.11. Thanks for letting know anyway!
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/[email protected]/T/#t
>>
>>
>> Jens, I think it's for the best to add it for 5.10, at least so that lockdep
>> doesn't complain.
> 
> Yeah maybe, though it's "just" a lockdep issue, it can't trigger any
> deadlocks. I'd rather just keep it in 5.11 and ensure it goes to stable.
> This isn't new in this series.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with lockdep implementation, here I wonder why you say
it can't trigger any deadlocks, looking at that the syzbot report, seems that
the deadlock may happen.

And I also wonder whether spin lock bh variants are enough, normal ios are
completed in interrupt context,
==> io_complete_rw
====> __io_complete_rw
======> io_complete_rw_common
========> __io_req_complete
==========> io_put_req
============> io_free_req
==============> __io_free_req
================> io_dismantle_req
==================> io_put_file
====================> percpu_ref_put(req->fixed_file_refs);
                       if we drop the last reference here,
                       io_file_data_ref_zero() will be called,
                       then we'll call spin_lock(&data->lock);
                       in interrupt context.

Should we use spin lock irq variants?

Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang

> 

  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-15  7:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-28 23:59 Lockdep warning on io_file_data_ref_zero() with 5.10-rc5 Nadav Amit
2020-11-29  0:13 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-11-29  0:21   ` Nadav Amit
2020-11-30 18:16   ` Jens Axboe
2020-12-15  6:58     ` Xiaoguang Wang [this message]
2020-12-15 16:18       ` Jens Axboe

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=e9f232a9-f28e-a987-c971-d8185c0060f5@linux.alibaba.com \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /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