Re: lockdep WARNING at blktests block/011
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: 2022-09-30 11:19:41
Also in:
linux-nvme
On 2022/09/30 9:19, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
Kernel v6.0-rc7 triggered the WARN "possible circular locking dependency
detected" at blktests test case block/011 for NVME devices [1]. The trigger
commit was c0feea594e05 ("workqueue: don't skip lockdep work dependency in
cancel_work_sync()"). The commit was backported to v5.15.71 stable kernel and
the WARN is observed with the stable kernel also. It looks that the possible
deadlock scenario has been hidden for long time and the commit revealed it now.Right.
I tried to understand the deadlock scenario, but can not tell if it is for real, or false-positive. Help to understand the scenario will be appreciated. The lockdep splat mentions three locks (ctrl->namespaces_rwsem, dev->shutdown_lock and q->timeout_work).
Right.
This is a circular locking problem which involves three locks.
(A) (work_completion)(&q->timeout_work) --> &dev->shutdown_lock
(B) &dev->shutdown_lock --> &ctrl->namespaces_rwsem
(C) &ctrl->namespaces_rwsem --> (work_completion)(&q->timeout_work)
(A) and (B) happens due to
INIT_WORK(&q->timeout_work, blk_mq_timeout_work);
blk_mq_timeout_work(work) { // Is blocking __flush_work() from cancel_work_sync().
blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter(blk_mq_check_expired) {
bt_for_each(blk_mq_check_expired) == blk_mq_check_expired() {
blk_mq_rq_timed_out() {
req->q->mq_ops->timeout(req) == nvme_timeout(req) {
nvme_dev_disable() {
mutex_lock(&dev->shutdown_lock); // Holds dev->shutdown_lock
nvme_start_freeze(&dev->ctrl) {
down_read(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem); // Holds ctrl->namespaces_rwsem which might block
up_read(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem);
}
mutex_unlock(&dev->shutdown_lock);
}
}
}
}
}
}
(C) happens due to
nvme_sync_queues(ctrl) {
nvme_sync_io_queues(ctrl) {
down_read(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem); // Holds ctrl->namespaces_rwsem which might block
/*** Question comes here. Please check the last block in this mail. ***/
blk_sync_queue(ns->queue) {
cancel_work_sync(&q->timeout_work) {
__flush_work((&q->timeout_work, true) {
// Might wait for completion of blk_mq_timeout_work() with ctrl->namespaces_rwsem held.
}
}
}
up_read(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem);
}
}
In the related function call paths, it looks that ctrl->namespaces_rwsem is locked only for read, so the deadlock scenario does not look possible for me.
Right.
(Maybe I'm misunderstanding something...)
Although ctrl->namespaces_rwsem is a rw-sem and is held for read in these paths, there are paths which hold ctrl->namespaces_rwsem for write. If someone is trying to hold that rw-sem for write, these down_read(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem) will be blocked. That is, it also depends on whether down_read(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem); and down_write(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem); might run in parallel. Question: Does someone else call down_write(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem) immediately after someone's down_read(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem) succeeded? nvme_alloc_ns()/nvme_ns_remove()/nvme_remove_invalid_namespaces()/nvme_remove_namespaces() calls down_write(&ctrl->namespaces_rwsem), and some of these are called from work callback functions which might run in parallel with other work callback functions?