Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency atcleanup_workqueue_thread

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Mon May 18 2009 - 15:55:10 EST


On 05/17, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely sure yet, but I would think the problem might be a
> false positive in the workqueue code -- remember this report only
> triggers because cleanup_workqueue_thread() acquires the fake lock for
> the workqueue.

I spent a lot of time, but I can't explain this report too :( Even
if it is false positive, I don't understand why lockdep complains.

> Maybe it shouldn't do that from the CPU_POST_DEAD
> notifier?

Well, in any case we should understand why we have the problem, before
changing the code. And CPU_POST_DEAD is not special, why should we treat
it specially and skip lock_map_acquire(wq->lockdep_map) ?


But, I am starting to suspect we have some problems with lockdep too.
OK, I can't explain what I mean... But consider this code:

DEFINE_SPINLOCK(Z);
DEFINE_SPINLOCK(L1);
DEFINE_SPINLOCK(L2);

#define L(l) spin_lock(&l)
#define U(l) spin_unlock(&l)

void t1(void)
{
L(L1);
L(L2);

U(L2);
U(L1);
}

void t2(void)
{
L(L2);
L(Z);
L(L1);

U(L1);
U(Z);
U(L2);
}

void tst(void)
{
t1();
t2();
}

We have the trivial AB-BA deadlock with L1 and L2, but lockdep says:

[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.30-rc6-00043-g22ef37e-dirty #3
-------------------------------------------------------
perl/676 is trying to acquire lock:
(L1){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff802522b8>] t2+0x28/0x50

but task is already holding lock:
(Z){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff802522ac>] t2+0x1c/0x50

which lock already depends on the new lock.


the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (Z){+.+...}:

-> #1 (L2){+.+...}:

-> #0 (L1){+.+...}:

other info that might help us debug this:

2 locks held by perl/676:
#0: (L2){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff802522a0>] t2+0x10/0x50
#1: (Z){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff802522ac>] t2+0x1c/0x50

This output looks obviously wrong, Z does not depend on L1 or any
other lock.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/