Re: xfs lockdep trace after unlink

[Dave Chinner]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:54:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 08:37:42AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:20:56PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > I was deleting a kernel tree, when this happened..
> > > RCU, or xfs ?
> > > 
> > > BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
> > 
> > Or lockdep?
> > 
> > > turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > > Please attach the output of /proc/lock_stat to the bug report
> > > CPU: 2 PID: 8109 Comm: rm Not tainted 3.12.0-rc4+ #96 
> > >  ffffffff824bc2e0 ffff880026f416a8 ffffffff8172d798 41e619a2e5098827
> > >  ffff880026f41768 ffffffff810cc91f 0000000000000002 000010a02977b643
> > >  ffff880026f416d8 0000000000000212 ffff880026f416f8 ffffffff810c7329
> > > Call Trace:
> > >  [<ffffffff8172d798>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x82
> > >  [<ffffffff810cc91f>] __lock_acquire+0x1b7f/0x1be0
> > >  [<ffffffff810c7329>] ? get_lock_stats+0x19/0x60
> > >  [<ffffffff810c7f5d>] ? lock_release_holdtime.part.29+0x9d/0x160
> > >  [<ffffffff810cd133>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x200
> > >  [<ffffffff81097d0a>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x22a/0x350
> > >  [<ffffffff817373c0>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
> > >  [<ffffffff81097d0a>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x22a/0x350
> > >  [<ffffffff81097d0a>] try_to_wake_up+0x22a/0x350
> > >  [<ffffffff81097ea2>] default_wake_function+0x12/0x20
> > >  [<ffffffff81084c38>] autoremove_wake_function+0x18/0x40
> > >  [<ffffffff81090083>] ? __wake_up+0x23/0x50
> > >  [<ffffffff8108eb78>] __wake_up_common+0x58/0x90
> > >  [<ffffffff81090099>] __wake_up+0x39/0x50
> > >  [<ffffffff8110dc38>] rcu_report_qs_rsp+0x48/0x70
> > >  [<ffffffff8110f7d4>] rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp+0x84/0x90
> > >  [<ffffffff81117fcf>] ? rcu_read_unlock_special+0x9f/0x4e0
> > >  [<ffffffff81118264>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x334/0x4e0
> > >  [<ffffffff810c720f>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1f/0xc0
> > >  [<ffffffff8107f16c>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x8c/0x90
> > >  [<ffffffffa027084e>] xfs_perag_get+0xde/0x2a0 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa0270775>] ? xfs_perag_get+0x5/0x2a0 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa01f72f6>] _xfs_buf_find+0xd6/0x480 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa01f780a>] xfs_buf_get_map+0x2a/0x260 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa01f8fcc>] xfs_buf_read_map+0x2c/0x200 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa0281019>] xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x4b9/0xa70 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa0245578>] xfs_da_read_buf+0xb8/0x340 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffff810ca84b>] ? mark_held_locks+0xbb/0x140
> > >  [<ffffffffa024a3b9>] xfs_dir3_block_read+0x39/0x80 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa024a440>] xfs_dir2_block_lookup_int+0x40/0x260 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa024b49d>] xfs_dir2_block_removename+0x3d/0x390 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa022d0da>] ? xfs_bmap_last_offset+0x4a/0xa0 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa024991c>] xfs_dir_removename+0x11c/0x180 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa0262085>] xfs_remove+0x2e5/0x510 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffffa020ab8b>] xfs_vn_unlink+0x4b/0x90 [xfs]
> > >  [<ffffffff811d4fd0>] vfs_unlink+0x90/0x100
> > >  [<ffffffff811d51bf>] do_unlinkat+0x17f/0x240
> > >  [<ffffffff81010b45>] ? syscall_trace_enter+0x145/0x2a0
> > >  [<ffffffff811d830b>] SyS_unlinkat+0x1b/0x40
> > >  [<ffffffff817408e4>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
> > 
> > It's hard to see what in XFS is causing this. You're reading a
> > single block directory, which means we're holding two inode locks
> > here, and then we've done a lookup on a radix tree under
> > rcu_read_lock(). Hence I can't see how we've overrun the lockdep
> > chain depth in the XFS code path. FWIW, it's thrown this warning
> > when calling rcu_read_unlock() here:
> > 
> > struct xfs_perag *
> > xfs_perag_get(
> >         struct xfs_mount        *mp,
> >         xfs_agnumber_t          agno)
> > {
> >         struct xfs_perag        *pag;
> >         int                     ref = 0;
> > 
> >         rcu_read_lock();
> >         pag = radix_tree_lookup(&mp->m_perag_tree, agno);
> >         if (pag) {
> >                 ASSERT(atomic_read(&pag->pag_ref) >= 0);
> >                 ref = atomic_inc_return(&pag->pag_ref);
> >         }
> > >>>>>>  rcu_read_unlock();
> 
> Would xfs be holding one of the scheduler's rq or pi locks at this
> point?  That could result in deadlock.

XFS doesn't have any hooks into the scheduler at all. So if there is
a problem with scheduler locks, then it's been leaked by the scheduler
or something intimately familiar with the scheduler...

> But I doubt that this is the problem, unless radix_tree_lookup() grabs
> one and returns with it held.

Same thing - if the radix tree code returns with a scheduler lock
held then there's a bug in the scheduler somewhere...

> Otherwise, you have interrupts disabled
> throughout the RCU read-side critical section, and thus are guaranteed
> to take the lockless fastpath through rcu_read_unlock().  (As opposed
> to merely having extremely high probability of taking that fastpath.)

XFS doesn't disable interrupts anywhere itself, so I'm assuming that
you are talking about something that is done internally in the
rcu_read_lock()/unlock() calls?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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/