mirror of
git://git.yoctoproject.org/linux-yocto.git
synced 2025-10-22 23:13:01 +02:00
IB/core: Annotate umem_mutex acquisition under fs_reclaim for lockdep
Following the fix in the previous commit ("IB/mlx5: Fix potential deadlock in MR deregistration"), teach lockdep explicitly about the locking order between fs_reclaim and umem_mutex. The previous commit resolved a potential deadlock scenario where kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL) was called while holding umem_mutex, which could lead to reclaim and eventually invoke the MMU notifier (mlx5_ib_invalidate_range()), causing a recursive acquisition of umem_mutex. To prevent such issues from reoccurring unnoticed in future code changes, add a lockdep annotation in ib_init_umem_odp() that simulates taking umem_mutex inside a reclaim context. This makes lockdep aware of this locking dependency and ensures that future violations—such as calling kzalloc() or any memory allocator that may enter reclaim while holding umem_mutex—will immediately raise a lockdep warning. Signed-off-by: Or Har-Toov <ohartoov@nvidia.com> Reviewed-by: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@nvidia.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/9d31b9d8fe1db648a9f47cec3df6b8463319dee5.1750061698.git.leon@kernel.org Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
2ed25aa7f7
commit
3f5f6321f1
|
@ -76,6 +76,17 @@ static int ib_init_umem_odp(struct ib_umem_odp *umem_odp,
|
|||
end = ALIGN(end, page_size);
|
||||
if (unlikely(end < page_size))
|
||||
return -EOVERFLOW;
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* The mmu notifier can be called within reclaim contexts and takes the
|
||||
* umem_mutex. This is rare to trigger in testing, teach lockdep about
|
||||
* it.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP)) {
|
||||
fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
|
||||
mutex_lock(&umem_odp->umem_mutex);
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&umem_odp->umem_mutex);
|
||||
fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
nr_entries = (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
|
||||
if (!(nr_entries * PAGE_SIZE / page_size))
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user