Re: lockdep warning in sys_swapon

From: Darrick J. Wong
Date: Wed Mar 25 2020 - 12:11:14 EST

Next message: Vitaly Kuznetsov: "Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] KVM: x86: Move "flush guest's TLB" logic to separate kvm_x86_ops hook"
Previous message: Vitaly Kuznetsov: "Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] KVM: x86: Move "flush guest's TLB" logic to separate kvm_x86_ops hook"
In reply to: Qais Yousef: "Re: lockdep warning in sys_swapon"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 06:59:08AM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:12:01PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:06:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 15:30:45 +0000 Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 03/23/20 15:17, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > I hit the following 2 warnings when running with LOCKDEP=y on arm64 platform
> > > > > (juno-r2), running on v5.6-rc6
> > > > >
> > > > > The 1st one is when I execute `swapon -a`. The 2nd one happens at boot. I have
> > > > > /dev/sda2 as my swap in /etc/fstab
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that I either hit 1 OR 2, but didn't hit both warnings at the same time,
> > > > > yet at least.
> > > > >
> > > > > /dev/sda2 is a usb flash drive, in case it matters somehow.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I noticed that in claim_swapfile() if we fail we don't release the
> > > > lock. Shouldn't we release the lock here?
> > > >
> > > > I tried with that FWIW, but it had no effect on the warnings.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll be sending the below into Linus this week.
> > >
> > > I was hoping to hear from Darrick/Christoph (?) but it looks like the
> > > right thing to do. Are you able to test it?
> >
> > I had questions[1] about the patch, but nobody ever replied.
>
> Sorry, I have overlooked that one. I'm replying here.
>
> > Sorry to wander in late, but I don't see how we unlock the inode in the
> > success case. Before this patch, the "if (inode) inode_unlock(inode);"
> > below out: would take care of this for both the success case and the
> > bad_swap case, but now that's gone, and AFAICT after this patch we only
> > unlock the inode when erroring out...
> >
> > > +bad_swap_unlock_inode:
> > > + inode_unlock(inode);
> >
> > ...since we never goto bad_swap_unlock_inode when error == 0, correct?
>
> Actually, this patch does not touch "if (inode) inode_unlock(inode);" below
> the "out:" label, so we still have that "inode_unlock" after this patch and
> it unlocks the inode in the success case.

Ah, right, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. :)

Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>

--D

>
> >
> > --D
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200212164956.GK6874@magnolia/
> >
> > > I think I'll add a cc:stable to this one.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@xxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: mm/swapfile.c: move inode_lock out of claim_swapfile
> > >
> > > claim_swapfile() currently keeps the inode locked when it is successful,
> > > or the file is already swapfile (with -EBUSY). And, on the other error
> > > cases, it does not lock the inode.
> > >
> > > This inconsistency of the lock state and return value is quite confusing
> > > and actually causing a bad unlock balance as below in the "bad_swap"
> > > section of __do_sys_swapon().
> > >
> > > This commit fixes this issue by moving the inode_lock() and IS_SWAPFILE
> > > check out of claim_swapfile(). The inode is unlocked in
> > > "bad_swap_unlock_inode" section, so that the inode is ensured to be
> > > unlocked at "bad_swap". Thus, error handling codes after the locking now
> > > jumps to "bad_swap_unlock_inode" instead of "bad_swap".
> > >
> > > =====================================
> > > WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!
> > > 5.5.0-rc7+ #176 Not tainted
> > > -------------------------------------
> > > swapon/4294 is trying to release lock (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key) at:
> > > [<ffffffff8173a6eb>] __do_sys_swapon+0x94b/0x3550
> > > but there are no more locks to release!
> > >
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > no locks held by swapon/4294.
> > >
> > > stack backtrace:
> > > CPU: 5 PID: 4294 Comm: swapon Not tainted 5.5.0-rc7-BTRFS-ZNS+ #176
> > > Hardware name: ASUS All Series/H87-PRO, BIOS 2102 07/29/2014
> > > Call Trace:
> > > dump_stack+0xa1/0xea
> > > ? __do_sys_swapon+0x94b/0x3550
> > > print_unlock_imbalance_bug.cold+0x114/0x123
> > > ? __do_sys_swapon+0x94b/0x3550
> > > lock_release+0x562/0xed0
> > > ? kvfree+0x31/0x40
> > > ? lock_downgrade+0x770/0x770
> > > ? kvfree+0x31/0x40
> > > ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0xa1/0xd0
> > > ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0xb0/0xb0
> > > up_write+0x2d/0x490
> > > ? kfree+0x293/0x2f0
> > > __do_sys_swapon+0x94b/0x3550
> > > ? putname+0xb0/0xf0
> > > ? kmem_cache_free+0x2e7/0x370
> > > ? do_sys_open+0x184/0x3e0
> > > ? generic_max_swapfile_size+0x40/0x40
> > > ? do_syscall_64+0x27/0x4b0
> > > ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> > > ? lockdep_hardirqs_on+0x38c/0x590
> > > __x64_sys_swapon+0x54/0x80
> > > do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x4b0
> > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> > > RIP: 0033:0x7f15da0a0dc7
> > >
> > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200206090132.154869-1-naohiro.aota@xxxxxxx
> > > Fixes: 1638045c3677 ("mm: set S_SWAPFILE on blockdev swap devices")
> > > Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@xxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > mm/swapfile.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/swapfile.c~mm-swap-move-inode_lock-out-of-claim_swapfile
> > > +++ a/mm/swapfile.c
> > > @@ -2899,10 +2899,6 @@ static int claim_swapfile(struct swap_in
> > > p->bdev = inode->i_sb->s_bdev;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - inode_lock(inode);
> > > - if (IS_SWAPFILE(inode))
> > > - return -EBUSY;
> > > -
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -3157,36 +3153,41 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> > > mapping = swap_file->f_mapping;
> > > inode = mapping->host;
> > >
> > > - /* will take i_rwsem; */
> > > error = claim_swapfile(p, inode);
> > > if (unlikely(error))
> > > goto bad_swap;
> > >
> > > + inode_lock(inode);
> > > + if (IS_SWAPFILE(inode)) {
> > > + error = -EBUSY;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Read the swap header.
> > > */
> > > if (!mapping->a_ops->readpage) {
> > > error = -EINVAL;
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > > page = read_mapping_page(mapping, 0, swap_file);
> > > if (IS_ERR(page)) {
> > > error = PTR_ERR(page);
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > > swap_header = kmap(page);
> > >
> > > maxpages = read_swap_header(p, swap_header, inode);
> > > if (unlikely(!maxpages)) {
> > > error = -EINVAL;
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* OK, set up the swap map and apply the bad block list */
> > > swap_map = vzalloc(maxpages);
> > > if (!swap_map) {
> > > error = -ENOMEM;
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (bdi_cap_stable_pages_required(inode_to_bdi(inode)))
> > > @@ -3211,7 +3212,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > if (!cluster_info) {
> > > error = -ENOMEM;
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > >
> > > for (ci = 0; ci < nr_cluster; ci++)
> > > @@ -3220,7 +3221,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> > > p->percpu_cluster = alloc_percpu(struct percpu_cluster);
> > > if (!p->percpu_cluster) {
> > > error = -ENOMEM;
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > > for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> > > struct percpu_cluster *cluster;
> > > @@ -3234,13 +3235,13 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> > >
> > > error = swap_cgroup_swapon(p->type, maxpages);
> > > if (error)
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > >
> > > nr_extents = setup_swap_map_and_extents(p, swap_header, swap_map,
> > > cluster_info, maxpages, &span);
> > > if (unlikely(nr_extents < 0)) {
> > > error = nr_extents;
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > > /* frontswap enabled? set up bit-per-page map for frontswap */
> > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FRONTSWAP))
> > > @@ -3280,7 +3281,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> > >
> > > error = init_swap_address_space(p->type, maxpages);
> > > if (error)
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Flush any pending IO and dirty mappings before we start using this
> > > @@ -3290,7 +3291,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> > > error = inode_drain_writes(inode);
> > > if (error) {
> > > inode->i_flags &= ~S_SWAPFILE;
> > > - goto bad_swap;
> > > + goto bad_swap_unlock_inode;
> > > }
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&swapon_mutex);
> > > @@ -3315,6 +3316,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(swapon, const char __use
> > >
> > > error = 0;
> > > goto out;
> > > +bad_swap_unlock_inode:
> > > + inode_unlock(inode);
> > > bad_swap:
> > > free_percpu(p->percpu_cluster);
> > > p->percpu_cluster = NULL;
> > > @@ -3322,6 +3325,7 @@ bad_swap:
> > > set_blocksize(p->bdev, p->old_block_size);
> > > blkdev_put(p->bdev, FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE | FMODE_EXCL);
> > > }
> > > + inode = NULL;
> > > destroy_swap_extents(p);
> > > swap_cgroup_swapoff(p->type);
> > > spin_lock(&swap_lock);
> > > @@ -3333,13 +3337,8 @@ bad_swap:
> > > kvfree(frontswap_map);
> > > if (inced_nr_rotate_swap)
> > > atomic_dec(&nr_rotate_swap);
> > > - if (swap_file) {
> > > - if (inode) {
> > > - inode_unlock(inode);
> > > - inode = NULL;
> > > - }
> > > + if (swap_file)
> > > filp_close(swap_file, NULL);
> > > - }
> > > out:
> > > if (page && !IS_ERR(page)) {
> > > kunmap(page);
> > > _
> > >

Next message: Vitaly Kuznetsov: "Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] KVM: x86: Move "flush guest's TLB" logic to separate kvm_x86_ops hook"
Previous message: Vitaly Kuznetsov: "Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] KVM: x86: Move "flush guest's TLB" logic to separate kvm_x86_ops hook"
In reply to: Qais Yousef: "Re: lockdep warning in sys_swapon"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]