[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110822135604.GU2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:56:04 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
Cc: "Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected
3.1.0-rc2-00190-g3210d19
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 09:33:34AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> So the lockdep report in the RHBZ (which now that I look at it
> probably isn't the same as this report) seems to be doing a readdir
> while find is trying to mmap, which is calling into
> hugetlbfs_file_mmap and throwing the same deadlock warning. Is that
> like the scenario you are describing above?
Lockdep records the first trace that leads to locks taken in this
order. readdir() seems to be the first thing to step on i_mutex
and mmap_sem (not too surprisingly, come to think of that - directory
reads happening earlier in the boot than regular file writes).
So when it reports i_mutex taken under mmap_sem, readdir gets mentioned
by lockdep. Often leading to comments along the lines of "but this
inode is not a directory at all; shouldn't we relax the rules for
non-directories?" Nope; the same ordering very much applies to regular
files. With s/readdir/write/.
The bottom line is: don't take i_mutex while holding mmap_sem. Really.
--
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