Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_isolation: fix a deadlock with printk()
From: Christian Borntraeger
Date: Tue Oct 08 2019 - 08:56:57 EST
Adding Peter Oberparleiter.
Peter, can you have a look?
On 08.10.19 10:27, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 08-10-19 09:43:57, Petr Mladek wrote:
>> On Mon 2019-10-07 16:49:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [Cc s390 maintainers - the lockdep is http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1570228005-24979-1-git-send-email-cai@xxxxxx
>>> Petr has explained it is a false positive
>>> On Mon 07-10-19 16:30:02, Petr Mladek wrote:
>>>> I believe that it cannot really happen because:
>>>> static int __init
>>>> rc = sclp_rw_init();
>>>> return 0;
>>>> sclp_rw_init() is called before register_console(). And
>>>> console_unlock() will never call sclp_console_write() before
>>>> the console is registered.
>>>> AFAIK, lockdep only compares existing chain of locks. It does
>>>> not know about console registration that would make some
>>>> code paths mutually exclusive.
>>>> I believe that it is a false positive. I do not know how to
>>>> avoid this lockdep report. I hope that it will disappear
>>>> by deferring all printk() calls rather soon.
>>> Thanks a lot for looking into this Petr. I have also checked the code
>>> and I really fail to see why the allocation has to be done under the
>>> lock in the first place. sclp_read_sccb and sclp_init_sccb are global
>>> variables but I strongly suspect that they need a synchronization during
>>> early init, callbacks are registered only later IIUC:
>> Good idea. It would work when the init function is called only once.
>> But see below.
>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/char/sclp.c b/drivers/s390/char/sclp.c
>>> index d2ab3f07c008..4b1c033e3255 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/s390/char/sclp.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/char/sclp.c
>>> @@ -1169,13 +1169,13 @@ sclp_init(void)
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> int rc = 0;
>>> + sclp_read_sccb = (void *) __get_free_page(GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_DMA);
>>> + sclp_init_sccb = (void *) __get_free_page(GFP_ATOMIC | GFP_DMA);
>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&sclp_lock, flags);
>>> /* Check for previous or running initialization */
>>> if (sclp_init_state != sclp_init_state_uninitialized)
>>> goto fail_unlock;
>> It seems that sclp_init() could be called several times in parallel.
>> I see it called from sclp_register() and sclp_initcall().
> Interesting. Something for s390 people to answer I guess.
> Anyway, this should be quite trivial to workaround by a cmpxch or alike.