[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7iduc45t9dvo0396fm78d8uat84uurh131@4ax.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:31:05 +1000
From: Grant Coady <grant_lkml@...o.com.au>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>, rjw@...k.pl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc6: lockdep warning: iprune_mutex at shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:52:04 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 03:31:38AM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.27-rc6-00034-gd1c6d2e #3
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> nfsd/1766 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (iprune_mutex){--..}, at: [<c01743fb>] shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<c021134f>]
>> xfs_ilock+0xa2/0xd6
>>
>>
>> I read files through nfs and saw delay for few seconds.
>> System is x86_32, nfs, xfs.
>> The last working kernel is 2.6.27-rc5,
>> I do not know yet is it reproducible or not.
>
><sigh>
>
>We need a FAQ for this one. It's a false positive. Google for an
>explanation - I've explained it 4 or 5 times in the past year and
>asked that the lockdep folk invent a special annotation for the
>iprune_mutex (or memory reclaim) because of the way it can cause
>recursion into the filesystem and hence invert lock orders without
>causing deadlocks.....
Yeah, but a 30 second dreadlock? It's a long wait wondering what's
gone down or not ;)
Grant.
--
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