Re: [PATCH 3.3] memcg: fix deadlock by inverting lrucare nesting

[Johannes Weiner]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:25:02PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> We have forgotten the rules of lock nesting: the irq-safe ones must be
> taken inside the non-irq-safe ones, otherwise we are open to deadlock:
> 
> CPU0                          CPU1
> ----                          ----
> lock(&(&pc->lock)->rlock);
>                               local_irq_disable();
>                               lock(&(&zone->lru_lock)->rlock);
>                               lock(&(&pc->lock)->rlock);
> <Interrupt>
> lock(&(&zone->lru_lock)->rlock);
> 
> To check a different locking issue, I happened to add a spin_lock to
> memcg's bit_spin_lock in lock_page_cgroup(), and lockdep very quickly
> complained about __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_lrucare() (on CPU1 above).
> 
> So delete __mem_cgroup_commit_charge_lrucare(), passing a bool lrucare
> to __mem_cgroup_commit_charge() instead, taking zone->lru_lock under
> lock_page_cgroup() in the lrucare case.
> 
> The original was using spin_lock_irqsave, but we'd be in more trouble
> if it were ever called at interrupt time: unconditional _irq is enough.
> And ClearPageLRU before del from lru, SetPageLRU before add to lru: no
> strong reason, but that is the ordering used consistently elsewhere.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
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/