[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120217002726.GL23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:27:26 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Josh Boyer <jboyer@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:08:57PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> Remember this ? https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/15/272
> Josh took a stab at fixing it in e096d0c7e2e4e5893792db865dd065ac73cf1f00,
> but it seems to still be there.
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[snip]
... and as bloody usual, that mentioning of readdir in the output is a
red herring; the real problem (and yes, it *is* deadlock-prone) is not
with getdents(2) that cannot happen on anything that could be mmaped;
it's with hugetlbfs_read() (i.e. read(2)) that very definitely *can*.
This is *not* a misannotation and not a false positive; this is a real,
honest deadlock.
Thread A:
read() on hugetlbfs
hugetlbfs_read() called
i_mutex grabbed
hugetlbfs_read_actor() called
__copy_to_user() called
page fault is triggered
Thread B, sharing address space with A:
mmap() the same file
->mmap_sem is grabbed on task_B->mm->mmap_sem
hugetlbfs_file_mmap() is called
attempt to grab ->i_mutex and block waiting for A to give it up
Thread A:
pagefault handled blocked on attempt to grab task_A->mm->mmap_sem,
which happens to be the same thing as task_B->mm->mmap_sem. Block waiting
for B to give it up.
Deadlock.
--
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