On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:47:23 -0800 Yang Shi yang.shi@linaro.org wrote:
commit 5634cc2aa9aebc77bc862992e7805469dcf83dac ("writeback: update writeback tracepoints to report cgroup") made writeback tracepoints report cgroup writeback, but it may trigger the below bug on -rt kernel due to the list_lock held for the for loop in wb_writeback().
list_lock is a sleeping mutex, it's not disabling preemption. Moving it doesn't make a difference.
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:930 in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 625, name: kworker/u16:3
Something else disabled preemption. And note, nothing in the tracepoint should have called a sleeping function.
INFO: lockdep is turned off. Preemption disabled at:[<ffffffc000374a5c>] wb_writeback+0xec/0x830
CPU: 7 PID: 625 Comm: kworker/u16:3 Not tainted 4.4.1-rt5 #20 Hardware name: Freescale Layerscape 2085a RDB Board (DT) Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-7:0) Call trace: [<ffffffc00008d708>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x200 [<ffffffc00008d92c>] show_stack+0x24/0x30 [<ffffffc0007b0f40>] dump_stack+0x88/0xa8 [<ffffffc000127d74>] ___might_sleep+0x2ec/0x300 [<ffffffc000d5d550>] rt_spin_lock+0x38/0xb8 [<ffffffc0003e0548>] kernfs_path_len+0x30/0x90 [<ffffffc00036b360>] trace_event_raw_event_writeback_work_class+0xe8/0x2e8
How accurate is this trace back? Here's the code that is executed in this tracepoint:
TP_fast_assign( struct device *dev = bdi->dev; if (!dev) dev = default_backing_dev_info.dev; strncpy(__entry->name, dev_name(dev), 32); __entry->nr_pages = work->nr_pages; __entry->sb_dev = work->sb ? work->sb->s_dev : 0; __entry->sync_mode = work->sync_mode; __entry->for_kupdate = work->for_kupdate; __entry->range_cyclic = work->range_cyclic; __entry->for_background = work->for_background; __entry->reason = work->reason; ),
See anything that would sleep?
[<ffffffc000374f90>] wb_writeback+0x620/0x830 [<ffffffc000376224>] wb_workfn+0x61c/0x950 [<ffffffc000110adc>] process_one_work+0x3ac/0xb30 [<ffffffc0001112fc>] worker_thread+0x9c/0x7a8 [<ffffffc00011a9e8>] kthread+0x190/0x1b0 [<ffffffc000086ca0>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x30
The list_lock was moved outside the for loop by commit e8dfc30582995ae12454cda517b17d6294175b07 ("writeback: elevate queue_io() into wb_writeback())", however, the commit log says "No behavior change", so it sounds safe to have the list_lock acquired inside the for loop as it did before.
Just acquire list_lock at the necessary points and keep all writeback tracepoints outside the critical area protected by list_lock in wb_writeback().
But list_lock itself is a sleeping lock. This doesn't make sense.
This is not the bug you are looking for.
-- Steve
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi yang.shi@linaro.org
fs/fs-writeback.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c index 1f76d89..9b7b5f6 100644 --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c @@ -1623,7 +1623,6 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, work->older_than_this = &oldest_jif; blk_start_plug(&plug);
- spin_lock(&wb->list_lock); for (;;) { /*
- Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
@@ -1661,15 +1660,19 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, oldest_jif = jiffies; trace_writeback_start(wb, work);
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
trace_writeback_written(wb, work);wb_update_bandwidth(wb, wb_start);
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);trace_writeback_written(wb, work);/* * Did we write something? Try for more @@ -1693,15 +1696,14 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, */ if (!list_empty(&wb->b_more_io)) { trace_writeback_wait(wb, work);
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock); inode = wb_inode(wb->b_more_io.prev);
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); /* This function drops i_lock... */ inode_sleep_on_writeback(inode);
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);- spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock); blk_finish_plug(&plug);
return nr_pages - work->nr_pages;