[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091208151332.GA3141@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:13:32 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible irq lock inversion dependency detected in JBD
Hello,
> During testing I had the below trace from lockdep. After some googling seems
> it wasn't reported. The complete trace attached, it's almost 800K uncompressed.
>
> =========================================================
> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> 2.6.31-scst-dbg #3
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> kswapd0/290 just changed the state of lock:
> (jbd_handle){+.+.-.}, at: [<7826a6fa>] journal_start+0xd4/0x13a
> but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&type->s_lock_key){+.+.+.}
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> no locks held by kswapd0/290.
Thanks for the report. If I'm reading the lockdep messages right, it
complains that page reclaim can be run with sb->s_lock held but we also
start a transaction in the page reclaim path and we take sb->s_lock after
starting a transaction in some paths.
The warning seems to be false positive to me since we don't really
acquire sb->s_lock in the reclaim path. It would be nice if we could
get this sorted out but I don't see an easy way out of this...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
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