You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The following lockdep problem was reported by Or Gerlitz <[email protected]>:
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.3.0-32035-g1b2649e-dirty #4 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
kworker/5:1/418 is trying to acquire lock:
(&id_priv->handler_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0138a41>] rdma_destroy_i d+0x33/0x1f0 [rdma_cm]
but task is already holding lock:
(&id_priv->handler_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0135130>] cma_disable_ca llback+0x24/0x45 [rdma_cm]
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
lock(&id_priv->handler_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
3 locks held by kworker/5:1/418:
#0: (ib_cm){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff81042ac1>] process_one_work+0x210/0x4a 6
#1: ((&(&work->work)->work)){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81042ac1>] process_on e_work+0x210/0x4a6
#2: (&id_priv->handler_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0135130>] cma_disab le_callback+0x24/0x45 [rdma_cm]
stack backtrace:
Pid: 418, comm: kworker/5:1 Not tainted 3.3.0-32035-g1b2649e-dirty #4
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8102b0fb>] ? console_unlock+0x1f4/0x204
[<ffffffff81068771>] __lock_acquire+0x16b5/0x174e
[<ffffffff8106461f>] ? save_trace+0x3f/0xb3
[<ffffffff810688fa>] lock_acquire+0xf0/0x116
[<ffffffffa0138a41>] ? rdma_destroy_id+0x33/0x1f0 [rdma_cm]
[<ffffffff81364351>] mutex_lock_nested+0x64/0x2ce
[<ffffffffa0138a41>] ? rdma_destroy_id+0x33/0x1f0 [rdma_cm]
[<ffffffff81065a78>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x11e/0x155
[<ffffffff81065abc>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0xf
[<ffffffffa0138a41>] rdma_destroy_id+0x33/0x1f0 [rdma_cm]
[<ffffffffa0139c02>] cma_req_handler+0x418/0x644 [rdma_cm]
[<ffffffffa012ee88>] cm_process_work+0x32/0x119 [ib_cm]
[<ffffffffa0130299>] cm_req_handler+0x928/0x982 [ib_cm]
[<ffffffffa01302f3>] ? cm_req_handler+0x982/0x982 [ib_cm]
[<ffffffffa0130326>] cm_work_handler+0x33/0xfe5 [ib_cm]
[<ffffffff81065a78>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x11e/0x155
[<ffffffffa01302f3>] ? cm_req_handler+0x982/0x982 [ib_cm]
[<ffffffff81042b6e>] process_one_work+0x2bd/0x4a6
[<ffffffff81042ac1>] ? process_one_work+0x210/0x4a6
[<ffffffff813669f3>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2b/0x40
[<ffffffff8104316e>] worker_thread+0x1d6/0x350
[<ffffffff81042f98>] ? rescuer_thread+0x241/0x241
[<ffffffff81046a32>] kthread+0x84/0x8c
[<ffffffff8136e854>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
[<ffffffff81366d59>] ? retint_restore_args+0xe/0xe
[<ffffffff810469ae>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x56/0x56
[<ffffffff8136e850>] ? gs_change+0xb/0xb
The actual locking is fine, since we're dealing with different locks,
but from the same lock class. cma_disable_callback() acquires the
listening id mutex, whereas rdma_destroy_id() acquires the mutex for
the new connection id. To fix this, delay the call to
rdma_destroy_id() until we've released the listening id mutex.
Signed-off-by: Sean Hefty <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
0 commit comments