[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 15:54:39 +0800
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>,
"Peter M. Petrakis" <peter.petrakis@...onical.com>,
Dann Frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>,
Massimo Morana <massimo.morana@...onical.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: mq: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 03:17:38PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 07:39:55AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 01:04:12PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >
> > > FYI, here is a different back trace on that commit.
> > >
> > > [ 3.255043] ======================================================
> > > [ 3.255052] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > [ 3.255052] 3.5.0-rc6-bisect-00355-geb04c28 #4 Not tainted
> > > [ 3.255052] -------------------------------------------------------
> > > [ 3.255052] init/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [ 3.255052] (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff81180d00>] might_fault+0x70/0xe0
> > > [ 3.255052]
> > > [ 3.255052] but task is already holding lock:
> > > [ 3.255052] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811d191e>] vfs_readdir+0x6e/0x130
> >
> > Do you see any similar with the _next_ commit?
>
> Stress tests show that the next commit is free from both the "circular
> locking dependency" issues.
Sorry.. but this still remains for commit 5d37e9e6("fs: Skip atime
update on frozen filesystem"):
[ 175.588560] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 175.588560] 3.5.0-rc6-bisect-00356-g5d37e9e6 #46 Not tainted
[ 175.588560] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 175.588560] trinity-child0/493 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 175.588560] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811cc4fe>] vfs_unlink+0x6e/0x1d0
[ 175.588560]
[ 175.588560] but task is already holding lock:
[ 175.588560] (sb_writers#11){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff811e40af>] mnt_want_write+0x2f/0x90
[ 175.588560]
[ 175.588560] which lock already depends on the new lock.
Thanks,
Fengguang
View attachment "dmesg-kvm_bisect-waimea-9373-2012-08-08-15-50-49-3.5.0-rc6-bisect-00356-g5d37e9e6-46" of type "text/plain" (56829 bytes)
View attachment ".config" of type "text/plain" (75042 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists