Re: possible lockdep regression introduced by 4d004099a668 ("lockdep: Fix lockdep recursion")

[Filipe Manana]

On 03/11/20 10:15, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 02-11-20 17:58:54, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/10/20 15:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:55:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:56:03AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>>>> That smells like the same issue reported here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20201022111700.GZ2651@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Make sure you have commit:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   f8e48a3dca06 ("lockdep: Fix preemption WARN for spurious IRQ-enable")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (in Linus' tree by now) and do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT enabled?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Bummer :/
>>>>
>>>>> I'll try with that commit and let you know, however it's gonna take a
>>>>> few hours to build a kernel and run all fstests (on that test box it
>>>>> takes over 3 hours) to confirm that fixes the issue.
>>>>
>>>> *ouch*, 3 hours is painful. How long to make it sick with the current
>>>> kernel? quicker I would hope?
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the quick reply!
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I don't think that commit can actually explain the issue :/
>>>>
>>>> The false positive on lockdep_assert_held() happens when the recursion
>>>> count is !0, however we _should_ be having IRQs disabled when
>>>> lockdep_recursion > 0, so that should never be observable.
>>>>
>>>> My hope was that DEBUG_PREEMPT would trigger on one of the
>>>> __this_cpu_{inc,dec}(lockdep_recursion) instance, because that would
>>>> then be a clear violation.
>>>>
>>>> And you're seeing this on x86, right?
>>>>
>>>> Let me puzzle moar..
>>>
>>> So I might have an explanation for the Sparc64 fail, but that can't
>>> explain x86 :/
>>>
>>> I initially thought raw_cpu_read() was OK, since if it is !0 we have
>>> IRQs disabled and can't get migrated, so if we get migrated both CPUs
>>> must have 0 and it doesn't matter which 0 we read.
>>>
>>> And while that is true; it isn't the whole store, on pretty much all
>>> architectures (except x86) this can result in computing the address for
>>> one CPU, getting migrated, the old CPU continuing execution with another
>>> task (possibly setting recursion) and then the new CPU reading the value
>>> of the old CPU, which is no longer 0.
>>>
>>> I already fixed a bunch of that in:
>>>
>>>   baffd723e44d ("lockdep: Revert "lockdep: Use raw_cpu_*() for per-cpu variables"")
>>>
>>> but clearly this one got crossed.
>>>
>>> Still, that leaves me puzzled over you seeing this on x86 :/
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I still get the same issue with 5.10-rc2.
>> Is there any non-merged patch I should try, or anything I can help with?
> 
> BTW, I've just hit the same deadlock issue with ext4 on generic/390 so I
> confirm this isn't btrfs specific issue (as we already knew from the
> analysis but still it's good to have that confirmed).

Indeed, yesterday Darrick was mentioning on IRC that he has run into it
too with fstests on XFS (5.10-rc).

> 
> 								Honza
>