tree bba641ceec47b52ce2a91bdf117aed01d476ea9f
parent aff622495c9a0b56148192e53bdec539f5e147f2
author Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> 1332372833 -0700
committer Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> 1332377696 -0700

compact_pgdat: workaround lockdep warning in kswapd

I get this lockdep warning from swapping load on linux-next, due to
"vmscan: kswapd carefully call compaction".

=================================
[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
3.3.0-rc2-next-20120201 #5 Not tainted
---------------------------------
inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
kswapd0/28 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
 (pcpu_alloc_mutex){+.+.?.}, at: [<ffffffff810d6684>] pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325
{RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
  [<ffffffff81099b75>] mark_held_locks+0xd7/0x103
  [<ffffffff8109a13c>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x85/0x9e
  [<ffffffff810f6bdc>] __kmalloc+0x6c/0x14b
  [<ffffffff810d57fd>] pcpu_mem_zalloc+0x59/0x62
  [<ffffffff810d5d16>] pcpu_extend_area_map+0x26/0xb1
  [<ffffffff810d679f>] pcpu_alloc+0x182/0x325
  [<ffffffff810d694d>] __alloc_percpu+0xb/0xd
  [<ffffffff8142ebfd>] snmp_mib_init+0x1e/0x2e
  [<ffffffff8185cd8d>] ipv4_mib_init_net+0x7a/0x184
  [<ffffffff813dc963>] ops_init.clone.0+0x6b/0x73
  [<ffffffff813dc9cc>] register_pernet_operations+0x61/0xa0
  [<ffffffff813dca8e>] register_pernet_subsys+0x29/0x42
  [<ffffffff8185d044>] inet_init+0x1ad/0x252
  [<ffffffff810002e3>] do_one_initcall+0x7a/0x12f
  [<ffffffff81832bc5>] kernel_init+0x9d/0x11e
  [<ffffffff814e51e4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
irq event stamp: 656613
hardirqs last  enabled at (656613): [<ffffffff814e0ddc>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x104/0x128
hardirqs last disabled at (656612): [<ffffffff814e0d34>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x5c/0x128
softirqs last  enabled at (655568): [<ffffffff8105b4a5>] __do_softirq+0x120/0x136
softirqs last disabled at (654757): [<ffffffff814e52dc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30

other info that might help us debug this:
 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0
       ----
  lock(pcpu_alloc_mutex);
  <Interrupt>
    lock(pcpu_alloc_mutex);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

no locks held by kswapd0/28.

stack backtrace:
Pid: 28, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 3.3.0-rc2-next-20120201 #5
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff810981f4>] print_usage_bug+0x1bf/0x1d0
 [<ffffffff81096c3e>] ? print_irq_inversion_bug+0x1d9/0x1d9
 [<ffffffff810982c0>] mark_lock_irq+0xbb/0x22e
 [<ffffffff810c5399>] ? free_hot_cold_page+0x13d/0x14f
 [<ffffffff81098684>] mark_lock+0x251/0x331
 [<ffffffff81098893>] mark_irqflags+0x12f/0x141
 [<ffffffff81098e32>] __lock_acquire+0x58d/0x753
 [<ffffffff810d6684>] ? pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325
 [<ffffffff81099433>] lock_acquire+0x54/0x6a
 [<ffffffff810d6684>] ? pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325
 [<ffffffff8107a5b8>] ? add_preempt_count+0xa9/0xae
 [<ffffffff814e0a21>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5e/0x315
 [<ffffffff810d6684>] ? pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325
 [<ffffffff81098f81>] ? __lock_acquire+0x6dc/0x753
 [<ffffffff810c9fb0>] ? __pagevec_release+0x2c/0x2c
 [<ffffffff810d6684>] pcpu_alloc+0x67/0x325
 [<ffffffff810c9fb0>] ? __pagevec_release+0x2c/0x2c
 [<ffffffff810d694d>] __alloc_percpu+0xb/0xd
 [<ffffffff8106c35e>] schedule_on_each_cpu+0x23/0x110
 [<ffffffff810c9fcb>] lru_add_drain_all+0x10/0x12
 [<ffffffff810f126f>] __compact_pgdat+0x20/0x182
 [<ffffffff810f15c2>] compact_pgdat+0x27/0x29
 [<ffffffff810c306b>] ? zone_watermark_ok+0x1a/0x1c
 [<ffffffff810cdf6f>] balance_pgdat+0x732/0x751
 [<ffffffff810ce0ed>] kswapd+0x15f/0x178
 [<ffffffff810cdf8e>] ? balance_pgdat+0x751/0x751
 [<ffffffff8106fd11>] kthread+0x84/0x8c
 [<ffffffff814e51e4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
 [<ffffffff810787ed>] ? finish_task_switch+0x85/0xea
 [<ffffffff814e3861>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe
 [<ffffffff8106fc8d>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x56/0x56
 [<ffffffff814e51e0>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb

The RECLAIM_FS notations indicate that it's doing the GFP_FS checking that
Nick hacked into lockdep a while back: I think we're intended to read that
"<Interrupt>" in the DEADLOCK scenario as "<Direct reclaim>".

I'm hazy, I have not reached any conclusion as to whether it's right to
complain or not; but I believe it's uneasy about kswapd now doing the
mutex_lock(&pcpu_alloc_mutex) which lru_add_drain_all() entails.  Nor have
I reached any conclusion as to whether it's important for kswapd to do
that draining or not.

But so as not to get blocked on this, with lockdep disabled from giving
further reports, here's a patch which removes the lru_add_drain_all() from
kswapd's callpath (and calls it only once from compact_nodes(), instead of
once per node).

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>