diff options
| author | Peter Zijlstra | 2013-11-26 15:03:41 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tejun Heo | 2013-11-27 13:52:47 -0500 |
| commit | 0fc0287c9ed1ffd3706f8b4d9b314aa102ef1245 (patch) | |
| tree | 759b083be5b7fc204f49fd5a3e2b53074a94ac2f | |
| parent | e5fca243abae1445afbfceebda5f08462ef869d3 (diff) | |
cpuset: Fix memory allocator deadlock
Juri hit the below lockdep report:
[ 4.303391] ======================================================
[ 4.303392] [ INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected ]
[ 4.303394] 3.12.0-dl-peterz+ #144 Not tainted
[ 4.303395] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 4.303397] kworker/u4:3/689 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
[ 4.303399] (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8114e63c>] new_slab+0x6c/0x290
[ 4.303417]
[ 4.303417] and this task is already holding:
[ 4.303418] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff812d2dfb>] blk_execute_rq_nowait+0x5b/0x100
[ 4.303431] which would create a new lock dependency:
[ 4.303432] (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...} -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...}
[ 4.303436]
[ 4.303898] the dependencies between the lock to be acquired and SOFTIRQ-irq-unsafe lock:
[ 4.303918] -> (&p->mems_allowed_seq){+.+...} ops: 2762 {
[ 4.303922] HARDIRQ-ON-W at:
[ 4.303923] [<ffffffff8108ab9a>] __lock_acquire+0x65a/0x1ff0
[ 4.303926] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
[ 4.303929] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
[ 4.303931] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 4.303933] SOFTIRQ-ON-W at:
[ 4.303933] [<ffffffff8108abcc>] __lock_acquire+0x68c/0x1ff0
[ 4.303935] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
[ 4.303940] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
[ 4.303955] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 4.303959] INITIAL USE at:
[ 4.303960] [<ffffffff8108a884>] __lock_acquire+0x344/0x1ff0
[ 4.303963] [<ffffffff8108cbe3>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x140
[ 4.303966] [<ffffffff81063dd6>] kthreadd+0x86/0x180
[ 4.303969] [<ffffffff816ded6c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[ 4.303972] }
Which reports that we take mems_allowed_seq with interrupts enabled. A
little digging found that this can only be from
cpuset_change_task_nodemask().
This is an actual deadlock because an interrupt doing an allocation will
hit get_mems_allowed()->...->__read_seqcount_begin(), which will spin
forever waiting for the write side to complete.
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Reported-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Tested-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/cpuset.c | 8 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/cpuset.c b/kernel/cpuset.c index 6bf981e13c43..4772034b4b17 100644 --- a/kernel/cpuset.c +++ b/kernel/cpuset.c @@ -1033,8 +1033,10 @@ static void cpuset_change_task_nodemask(struct task_struct *tsk, need_loop = task_has_mempolicy(tsk) || !nodes_intersects(*newmems, tsk->mems_allowed); - if (need_loop) + if (need_loop) { + local_irq_disable(); write_seqcount_begin(&tsk->mems_allowed_seq); + } nodes_or(tsk->mems_allowed, tsk->mems_allowed, *newmems); mpol_rebind_task(tsk, newmems, MPOL_REBIND_STEP1); @@ -1042,8 +1044,10 @@ static void cpuset_change_task_nodemask(struct task_struct *tsk, mpol_rebind_task(tsk, newmems, MPOL_REBIND_STEP2); tsk->mems_allowed = *newmems; - if (need_loop) + if (need_loop) { write_seqcount_end(&tsk->mems_allowed_seq); + local_irq_enable(); + } task_unlock(tsk); } |