@@ -1236,8 +1236,6 @@ static void cached_dev_free(struct closure *cl)
if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dc->writeback_thread))
kthread_stop(dc->writeback_thread);
- if (dc->writeback_write_wq)
- destroy_workqueue(dc->writeback_write_wq);
if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dc->status_update_thread))
kthread_stop(dc->status_update_thread);
@@ -738,6 +738,10 @@ static int bch_writeback_thread(void *arg)
}
}
+ if (dc->writeback_write_wq) {
+ flush_workqueue(dc->writeback_write_wq);
+ destroy_workqueue(dc->writeback_write_wq);
+ }
cached_dev_put(dc);
wait_for_kthread_stop();
When enable lockdep and reboot system with a writeback mode bcache device, the following potential deadlock warning is reported by lockdep engine. [ 101.536569][ T401] kworker/2:2/401 is trying to acquire lock: [ 101.538575][ T401] 00000000bbf6e6c7 ((wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq){+.+.}, at: flush_workqueue+0x87/0x4c0 [ 101.542054][ T401] [ 101.542054][ T401] but task is already holding lock: [ 101.544587][ T401] 00000000f5f305b3 ((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x21e/0x640 [ 101.548386][ T401] [ 101.548386][ T401] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 101.548386][ T401] [ 101.551874][ T401] [ 101.551874][ T401] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 101.555000][ T401] [ 101.555000][ T401] -> #1 ((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2){+.+.}: [ 101.557860][ T401] process_one_work+0x277/0x640 [ 101.559661][ T401] worker_thread+0x39/0x3f0 [ 101.561340][ T401] kthread+0x125/0x140 [ 101.562963][ T401] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 [ 101.564718][ T401] [ 101.564718][ T401] -> #0 ((wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq){+.+.}: [ 101.567701][ T401] lock_acquire+0xb4/0x1c0 [ 101.569651][ T401] flush_workqueue+0xae/0x4c0 [ 101.571494][ T401] drain_workqueue+0xa9/0x180 [ 101.573234][ T401] destroy_workqueue+0x17/0x250 [ 101.575109][ T401] cached_dev_free+0x44/0x120 [bcache] [ 101.577304][ T401] process_one_work+0x2a4/0x640 [ 101.579357][ T401] worker_thread+0x39/0x3f0 [ 101.581055][ T401] kthread+0x125/0x140 [ 101.582709][ T401] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 [ 101.584592][ T401] [ 101.584592][ T401] other info that might help us debug this: [ 101.584592][ T401] [ 101.588355][ T401] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 101.588355][ T401] [ 101.590974][ T401] CPU0 CPU1 [ 101.592889][ T401] ---- ---- [ 101.594743][ T401] lock((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2); [ 101.596785][ T401] lock((wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq); [ 101.600072][ T401] lock((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2); [ 101.602971][ T401] lock((wq_completion)bcache_writeback_wq); [ 101.605255][ T401] [ 101.605255][ T401] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 101.605255][ T401] [ 101.608310][ T401] 2 locks held by kworker/2:2/401: [ 101.610208][ T401] #0: 00000000cf2c7d17 ((wq_completion)events){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x21e/0x640 [ 101.613709][ T401] #1: 00000000f5f305b3 ((work_completion)(&cl->work)#2){+.+.}, at: process_one_work+0x21e/0x640 [ 101.617480][ T401] [ 101.617480][ T401] stack backtrace: [ 101.619539][ T401] CPU: 2 PID: 401 Comm: kworker/2:2 Tainted: G W 5.2.0-rc4-lp151.20-default+ #1 [ 101.623225][ T401] Hardware name: VMware, Inc. VMware Virtual Platform/440BX Desktop Reference Platform, BIOS 6.00 04/13/2018 [ 101.627210][ T401] Workqueue: events cached_dev_free [bcache] [ 101.629239][ T401] Call Trace: [ 101.630360][ T401] dump_stack+0x85/0xcb [ 101.631777][ T401] print_circular_bug+0x19a/0x1f0 [ 101.633485][ T401] __lock_acquire+0x16cd/0x1850 [ 101.635184][ T401] ? __lock_acquire+0x6a8/0x1850 [ 101.636863][ T401] ? lock_acquire+0xb4/0x1c0 [ 101.638421][ T401] ? find_held_lock+0x34/0xa0 [ 101.640015][ T401] lock_acquire+0xb4/0x1c0 [ 101.641513][ T401] ? flush_workqueue+0x87/0x4c0 [ 101.643248][ T401] flush_workqueue+0xae/0x4c0 [ 101.644832][ T401] ? flush_workqueue+0x87/0x4c0 [ 101.646476][ T401] ? drain_workqueue+0xa9/0x180 [ 101.648303][ T401] drain_workqueue+0xa9/0x180 [ 101.649867][ T401] destroy_workqueue+0x17/0x250 [ 101.651503][ T401] cached_dev_free+0x44/0x120 [bcache] [ 101.653328][ T401] process_one_work+0x2a4/0x640 [ 101.655029][ T401] worker_thread+0x39/0x3f0 [ 101.656693][ T401] ? process_one_work+0x640/0x640 [ 101.658501][ T401] kthread+0x125/0x140 [ 101.660012][ T401] ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70 [ 101.661985][ T401] ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x50 [ 101.691318][ T401] bcache: bcache_device_free() bcache0 stopped Here is how the above potential deadlock may happen in reboot/shutdown code path, 1) bcache_reboot() is called firstly in the reboot/shutdown code path, then in bcache_reboot(), bcache_device_stop() is called. 2) bcache_device_stop() sets BCACHE_DEV_CLOSING on d->falgs, then call closure_queue(&d->cl) to invoke cached_dev_flush(). And in turn cached_dev_flush() calls cached_dev_free() via closure_at() 3) In cached_dev_free(), after stopped writebach kthread dc->writeback_thread, the kwork dc->writeback_write_wq is stopping by destroy_workqueue(). 4) Inside destroy_workqueue(), drain_workqueue() is called. Inside drain_workqueue(), flush_workqueue() is called. Then wq->lockdep_map is acquired by lock_map_acquire() in flush_workqueue(). After the lock acquired the rest part of flush_workqueue() just wait for the workqueue to complete. 5) Now we look back at writeback thread routine bch_writeback_thread(), in the main while-loop, write_dirty() is called via continue_at() in read_dirty_submit(), which is called via continue_at() in while-loop level called function read_dirty(). Inside write_dirty() it may be re-called on workqueeu dc->writeback_write_wq via continue_at(). It means when the writeback kthread is stopped in cached_dev_free() there might be still one kworker queued on dc->writeback_write_wq to execute write_dirty() again. 6) Now this kworker is scheduled on dc->writeback_write_wq to run by process_one_work() (which is called by worker_thread()). Before calling the kwork routine, wq->lockdep_map is acquired. 7) But wq->lockdep_map is acquired already in step 4), so a A-A lock (lockdep terminology) scenario happens. Indeed on multiple cores syatem, the above deadlock is very rare to happen, just as the code comments in process_one_work() says, 2263 * AFAICT there is no possible deadlock scenario between the 2264 * flush_work() and complete() primitives (except for single-threaded 2265 * workqueues), so hiding them isn't a problem. But it is still good to fix such lockdep warning, even no one running bcache on single core system. The fix is simple. This patch solves the above potential deadlock by, - Do not destroy workqueue dc->writeback_write_wq in cached_dev_free(). - Flush and destroy dc->writeback_write_wq in writebach kthread routine bch_writeback_thread(), where after quit the thread main while-loop and before cached_dev_put() is called. By this fix, dc->writeback_write_wq will be stopped and destroy before the writeback kthread stopped, so the chance for a A-A locking on wq->lockdep_map is disappeared, such A-A deadlock won't happen any more. Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de> --- drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 2 -- drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)