user/sven/linux.git/kernel/locking, branch v4.17.13

locking/rwsem: Fix up_read_non_owner() warning with DEBUG_RWSEMS

2018-07-03T09:27:00Z

commit 03eeafdd9ab06a770d42c2b264d50dff7e2f4eee upstream. It was found that the use of up_read_non_owner() in NFS was causing the following warning when DEBUG_RWSEMS was configured. DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(sem->owner != ((struct task_struct *)(1UL << 0))) Looking into the rwsem.c file, it was discovered that the corresponding down_read_non_owner() function was not setting the owner field properly. This is fixed now, and the warning should be gone. Fixes: 5149cbac4235 ("locking/rwsem: Add DEBUG_RWSEMS to look for lock/unlock mismatches") Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Tested-by: Gavin Schenk Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Dan Williams Cc: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1527168398-4291-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

locking/percpu-rwsem: Annotate rwsem ownership transfer by setting RWSEM_OWNER_UNKNOWN

2018-05-16T09:45:16Z

The filesystem freezing code needs to transfer ownership of a rwsem embedded in a percpu-rwsem from the task that does the freezing to another one that does the thawing by calling percpu_rwsem_release() after freezing and percpu_rwsem_acquire() before thawing. However, the new rwsem debug code runs afoul with this scheme by warning that the task that releases the rwsem isn't the one that acquires it, as reported by Amir Goldstein: DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(sem->owner != get_current()) WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 1401 at /home/amir/build/src/linux/kernel/locking/rwsem.c:133 up_write+0x59/0x79 Call Trace: percpu_up_write+0x1f/0x28 thaw_super_locked+0xdf/0x120 do_vfs_ioctl+0x270/0x5f1 ksys_ioctl+0x52/0x71 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x19 do_syscall_64+0x5d/0x167 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe To work properly with the rwsem debug code, we need to annotate that the rwsem ownership is unknown during the tranfer period until a brave soul comes forward to acquire the ownership. During that period, optimistic spinning will be disabled. Reported-by: Amir Goldstein Tested-by: Amir Goldstein Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Jan Kara Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Theodore Y. Ts'o Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526420991-21213-3-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/rwsem: Add a new RWSEM_ANONYMOUSLY_OWNED flag

2018-05-16T09:45:15Z

There are use cases where a rwsem can be acquired by one task, but released by another task. In thess cases, optimistic spinning may need to be disabled. One example will be the filesystem freeze/thaw code where the task that freezes the filesystem will acquire a write lock on a rwsem and then un-owns it before returning to userspace. Later on, another task will come along, acquire the ownership, thaw the filesystem and release the rwsem. Bit 0 of the owner field was used to designate that it is a reader owned rwsem. It is now repurposed to mean that the owner of the rwsem is not known. If only bit 0 is set, the rwsem is reader owned. If bit 0 and other bits are set, it is writer owned with an unknown owner. One such value for the latter case is (-1L). So we can set owner to 1 for reader-owned, -1 for writer-owned. The owner is unknown in both cases. To handle transfer of rwsem ownership, the higher level code should set the owner field to -1 to indicate a write-locked rwsem with unknown owner. Optimistic spinning will be disabled in this case. Once the higher level code figures who the new owner is, it can then set the owner field accordingly. Tested-by: Amir Goldstein Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Jan Kara Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Theodore Y. Ts'o Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Will Deacon Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1526420991-21213-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

locking/rwsem: Add DEBUG_RWSEMS to look for lock/unlock mismatches

2018-03-31T05:30:50Z

For a rwsem, locking can either be exclusive or shared. The corresponding exclusive or shared unlock must be used. Otherwise, the protected data structures may get corrupted or the lock may be in an inconsistent state. In order to detect such anomaly, a new configuration option DEBUG_RWSEMS is added which can be enabled to look for such mismatches and print warnings that that happens. Signed-off-by: Waiman Long Acked-by: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1522445280-7767-2-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

Merge branch 'linus' into locking/core, to pick up fixes

2018-03-31T05:30:17Z

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

lockdep: Make the lock debug output more useful

2018-03-29T12:41:40Z

The lock debug output in print_lock() has a few shortcomings: - It prints the hlock->acquire_ip field in %px and %pS format. That's redundant information. - It lacks information about the lock object itself. The lock class is not helpful to identify a particular instance of a lock. Change the output so it prints: - hlock->instance to allow identification of a particular lock instance. - only the %pS format of hlock->ip_acquire which is sufficient to decode the actual code line with faddr2line. The resulting output is: 3 locks held by a.out/31106: #0: 00000000b0f753ba (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: copy_process.part.41+0x10d5/0x1fe0 #1: 00000000ef64d539 (&mm->mmap_sem/1){+.+.}, at: copy_process.part.41+0x10fe/0x1fe0 #2: 00000000b41a282e (&mapping->i_mmap_rwsem){++++}, at: copy_process.part.41+0x12f2/0x1fe0 [ tglx: Massaged changelog ] Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Acked-by: Michal Hocko Acked-by: David Rientjes Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org Cc: Borislav Petkov Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/201803271941.GBE57310.tVSOJLQOFFOHFM@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp

locking/rtmutex: Handle non enqueued waiters gracefully in remove_waiter()

2018-03-28T21:01:30Z

In -RT task_blocks_on_rt_mutex() may return with -EAGAIN due to (->pi_blocked_on == PI_WAKEUP_INPROGRESS) before it added itself as a waiter. In such a case remove_waiter() must not be called because without a waiter it will trigger the BUG_ON() statement. This was initially reported by Yimin Deng. Thomas Gleixner fixed it then with an explicit check for waiters before calling remove_waiter(). Instead of an explicit NULL check before calling rt_mutex_top_waiter() make the function return NULL if there are no waiters. With that fixed the now pointless NULL check is removed from rt_mutex_slowlock(). Reported-and-debugged-by: Yimin Deng Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAh1qt=DCL9aUXNxanP5BKtiPp3m+qj4yB+gDohhXPVFCxWwzg@mail.gmail.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180327121438.sss7hxg3crqy4ecd@linutronix.de

locking/mutex: Improve documentation

2018-03-20T07:07:41Z

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:56:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > My memory is weak and our documentation is awful. What does > mutex_lock_killable() actually do and how does it differ from > mutex_lock_interruptible()? Add kernel-doc for mutex_lock_killable() and mutex_lock_io(). Reword the kernel-doc for mutex_lock_interruptible(). Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Andrew Morton Cc: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Kirill Tkhai Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Paul E. McKenney Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: cl@linux.com Cc: tj@kernel.org Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180315115812.GA9949@bombadil.infradead.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

Merge tag 'v4.16-rc5' into locking/core, to pick up fixes

2018-03-12T11:14:57Z

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

rtmutex: Make rt_mutex_futex_unlock() safe for irq-off callsites

2018-03-09T10:06:16Z

When running rcutorture with TREE03 config, CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y, and kernel cmdline argument "rcutorture.gp_exp=1", lockdep reports a HARDIRQ-safe->HARDIRQ-unsafe deadlock: ================================ WARNING: inconsistent lock state 4.16.0-rc4+ #1 Not tainted -------------------------------- inconsistent {IN-HARDIRQ-W} -> {HARDIRQ-ON-W} usage. takes: __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0 {IN-HARDIRQ-W} state was registered at: _raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40 scheduler_tick+0x47/0xf0 ... other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 ---- lock(&rq->lock); lock(&rq->lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by rcu_torture_rea/724: rcu_torture_read_lock+0x0/0x70 stack backtrace: CPU: 2 PID: 724 Comm: rcu_torture_rea Not tainted 4.16.0-rc4+ #1 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.11.0-20171110_100015-anatol 04/01/2014 Call Trace: lock_acquire+0x90/0x200 ? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0 _raw_spin_lock+0x2a/0x40 ? __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0 __schedule+0xbe/0xaf0 preempt_schedule_irq+0x2f/0x60 retint_kernel+0x1b/0x2d RIP: 0010:rcu_read_unlock_special+0x0/0x680 ? rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x60/0x60 __rcu_read_unlock+0x64/0x70 rcu_torture_read_unlock+0x17/0x60 rcu_torture_reader+0x275/0x450 ? rcutorture_booster_init+0x110/0x110 ? rcu_torture_stall+0x230/0x230 ? kthread+0x10e/0x130 kthread+0x10e/0x130 ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70 ? call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x11a/0x150 ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 This happens with the following even sequence: preempt_schedule_irq(); local_irq_enable(); __schedule(): local_irq_disable(); // irq off ... rcu_note_context_switch(): rcu_note_preempt_context_switch(): rcu_read_unlock_special(): local_irq_save(flags); ... raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(...,flags); // irq remains off rt_mutex_futex_unlock(): raw_spin_lock_irq(); ... raw_spin_unlock_irq(); // accidentally set irq on rq_lock(): raw_spin_lock(); // acquiring rq->lock with irq on which means rq->lock becomes a HARDIRQ-unsafe lock, which can cause deadlocks in scheduler code. This problem was introduced by commit 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints"). That brought the user of rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with irq off. To fix this, replace the *lock_irq() in rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with *lock_irq{save,restore}() to make it safe to call rt_mutex_futex_unlock() with irq off. Fixes: 02a7c234e540 ("rcu: Suppress lockdep false-positive ->boost_mtx complaints") Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Lai Jiangshan Cc: Steven Rostedt Cc: Josh Triplett Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: "Paul E . McKenney" Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180309065630.8283-1-boqun.feng@gmail.com