[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6278d2220808221412x28f4ac5dl508884c8030b364a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:12:59 +0100
From: "Daniel J Blueman" <daniel.blueman@...il.com>
To: "Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xfs@....sgi.com
Cc: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>
Subject: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...
On 2.6.27-rc4 with various debug options enabled, lockdep claims lock
ordering issues with XFS [1] - easiest reproducer is just running
xfs_fsr. Mount options I was using were
'nobarrier,noatime,nodiratime'.
Thanks,
Daniel
--- [1]
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
-------------------------------------------------------
xfs_fsr/5763 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>]
xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}:
[<ffffffff8026b011>] __lock_acquire+0xdb1/0x1150
[<ffffffff8026b441>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff8025d967>] down_write_nested+0x57/0x90
[<ffffffff803ad915>] xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
[<ffffffff803cb086>] xfs_lock_two_inodes+0x106/0x120
[<ffffffff803b78e0>] xfs_swap_extents+0x70/0x5b0
[<ffffffff803b7f68>] xfs_swapext+0x148/0x150
[<ffffffff803d8195>] xfs_ioctl+0x6a5/0x810
[<ffffffff803d58bd>] xfs_file_ioctl_invis+0x3d/0x80
[<ffffffff802d4586>] vfs_ioctl+0x36/0xb0
[<ffffffff802d488b>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x28b/0x2f0
[<ffffffff802d493f>] sys_ioctl+0x4f/0x80
[<ffffffff8020c74b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
-> #0 (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}:
[<ffffffff8026b0f5>] __lock_acquire+0xe95/0x1150
[<ffffffff8026b441>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff8025d967>] down_write_nested+0x57/0x90
[<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
[<ffffffff803caff0>] xfs_lock_two_inodes+0x70/0x120
[<ffffffff803b7b03>] xfs_swap_extents+0x293/0x5b0
[<ffffffff803b7f68>] xfs_swapext+0x148/0x150
[<ffffffff803d8195>] xfs_ioctl+0x6a5/0x810
[<ffffffff803d58bd>] xfs_file_ioctl_invis+0x3d/0x80
[<ffffffff802d4586>] vfs_ioctl+0x36/0xb0
[<ffffffff802d488b>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x28b/0x2f0
[<ffffffff802d493f>] sys_ioctl+0x4f/0x80
[<ffffffff8020c74b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by xfs_fsr/5763:
#0: (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>]
xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
#1: (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>]
xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
stack backtrace:
Pid: 5763, comm: xfs_fsr Not tainted 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff80268d1f>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x9f/0xe0
[<ffffffff8026b0f5>] __lock_acquire+0xe95/0x1150
[<ffffffff8026b441>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
[<ffffffff803ad8fc>] ? xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
[<ffffffff8025d967>] down_write_nested+0x57/0x90
[<ffffffff803ad8fc>] ? xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
[<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
[<ffffffff803caff0>] xfs_lock_two_inodes+0x70/0x120
[<ffffffff803b7b03>] xfs_swap_extents+0x293/0x5b0
[<ffffffff803b7f68>] xfs_swapext+0x148/0x150
[<ffffffff803d8195>] xfs_ioctl+0x6a5/0x810
[<ffffffff802148b0>] ? native_sched_clock+0x70/0xa0
[<ffffffff802e24f2>] ? mnt_drop_write+0x62/0x140
[<ffffffff803d58bd>] xfs_file_ioctl_invis+0x3d/0x80
[<ffffffff802d4586>] vfs_ioctl+0x36/0xb0
[<ffffffff802d488b>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x28b/0x2f0
[<ffffffff8064128e>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[<ffffffff802d493f>] sys_ioctl+0x4f/0x80
[<ffffffff8020c74b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
--
Daniel J Blueman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists