Re: [Patch] workqueue: move lockdep annotations up to destroy_workqueue()

[Cong Wang]

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 04/01, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > I must have missed something, but it seems to me this patch tries to
> > > supress the valid warning.
> > >
> > > Could you please clarify?
> > Sure, below is the whole warning. Please teach me how this is valid.
>
> Oh, I can never understand the output from lockdep, it is much more
> clever than me ;)
>
> But at first glance,
>
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel: -> #2 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}:
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff810a6bc1>] validate_chain+0x1019/0x1540
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff810a7e75>] __lock_acquire+0xd8d/0xe55
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff810aa3a4>] lock_acquire+0x160/0x1af
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff815523f8>] mutex_lock_nested+0x64/0x4e9
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff8147af16>] rtnl_lock+0x1e/0x27
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffffa0836779>] bond_mii_monitor+0x39f/0x74b [bonding]
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff8108654f>] worker_thread+0x2da/0x46c
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff8108b1ea>] kthread+0xdd/0xec
> > Mar 31 16:15:02 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff81004894>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>
> OK, so work->func() takes rtnl_mutex.
>
> This means it is not safe to do flush_workqueue() or destroy_workqueue()
> under rtnl_lock(). This is known fact.
>
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel: -> #0 ((bond_dev->name)){+.+...}:
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff810a6696>] validate_chain+0xaee/0x1540
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff810a7e75>] __lock_acquire+0xd8d/0xe55
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff810aa3a4>] lock_acquire+0x160/0x1af
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff81085278>] cleanup_workqueue_thread+0x59/0x10b
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff81085428>] destroy_workqueue+0x9c/0x107
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffffa0839d32>] bond_uninit+0x524/0x58a [bonding]
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff8146967b>] rollback_registered_many+0x205/0x2e3
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff81469783>] unregister_netdevice_many+0x2a/0x75
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff8147ada3>] __rtnl_kill_links+0x8b/0x9d
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff8147adea>] __rtnl_link_unregister+0x35/0x72
> > Mar 31 16:15:03 dhcp-66-70-5 kernel:        [<ffffffff8147b293>] rtnl_link_unregister+0x2c/0x43
>
> However, rtnl_link_unregister() takes rtnl_mutex and then bond_uninit()
> does cleanup_workqueue_thread().
>
> So, looks like this warning is valid, this path can deadlock if
> destroy_workqueue() is called when bond->mii_work is queued.


Yeah, this is right.

> Lockdep decided to blaim cpu_add_remove_lock in this chain.

Yes, this is what makes me confused. ;)

Thanks!

--
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/