[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F9A835C.2020801@openvz.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:30:36 +0400
From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: lockdep reports about recursive locking in kmemleak
Hello,
I found a following message in dmesg. Probably we should to do something
similar as for debug_objects, it sets own class for parent->list_lock.
Does anyone want to fix that?
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
3.3.0+ #87 Not tainted
---------------------------------------------
udevd/847 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff811783f1>]
cache_alloc_refill+0xa1/0x300
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81177628>]
cache_flusharray+0x68/0x180
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0
----
lock(&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock);
lock(&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock);
*** DEADLOCK ***
May be due to missing lock nesting notation
1 lock held by udevd/847:
#0: (&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<ffffffff81177628>]
cache_flusharray+0x68/0x180
stack backtrace:
Pid: 847, comm: udevd Not tainted 3.3.0+ #87
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff810b835a>] __lock_acquire+0x126a/0x1730
[<ffffffff810b73f2>] ? __lock_acquire+0x302/0x1730
[<ffffffff810b88d1>] lock_acquire+0xb1/0x1a0
[<ffffffff811783f1>] ? cache_alloc_refill+0xa1/0x300
[<ffffffff8118cdb9>] ? create_object+0x39/0x2e0
[<ffffffff8153a141>] _raw_spin_lock+0x41/0x50
[<ffffffff811783f1>] ? cache_alloc_refill+0xa1/0x300
[<ffffffff811783f1>] cache_alloc_refill+0xa1/0x300
[<ffffffff810b73f2>] ? __lock_acquire+0x302/0x1730
[<ffffffff8118cdb9>] ? create_object+0x39/0x2e0
[<ffffffff81179cbc>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x2cc/0x320
[<ffffffff8118cdb9>] create_object+0x39/0x2e0
[<ffffffff810b73f2>] ? __lock_acquire+0x302/0x1730
[<ffffffff8151fade>] kmemleak_alloc+0x5e/0xc0
[<ffffffff81179b2c>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x13c/0x320
[<ffffffff81294d99>] __debug_object_init+0x3b9/0x3d0
[<ffffffff812944fa>] ? debug_object_activate+0xca/0x190
[<ffffffff81294dff>] debug_object_init+0x1f/0x30
[<ffffffff810767d7>] rcuhead_fixup_activate+0x27/0x70
[<ffffffff81293d35>] debug_object_fixup+0x15/0x20
[<ffffffff8129450c>] debug_object_activate+0xdc/0x190
[<ffffffff81177b50>] ? kmem_cache_shrink+0x70/0x70
[<ffffffff810f0d12>] __call_rcu+0x42/0x1e0
[<ffffffff810f0ee5>] call_rcu_sched+0x15/0x20
[<ffffffff81177113>] slab_destroy+0x153/0x160
[<ffffffff81177628>] ? cache_flusharray+0x68/0x180
[<ffffffff81177179>] free_block+0x59/0x230
[<ffffffff81177655>] cache_flusharray+0x95/0x180
[<ffffffff81176dbf>] ? kmem_cache_free+0x11f/0x320
[<ffffffff81176f6c>] kmem_cache_free+0x2cc/0x320
[<ffffffff8115b5b1>] ? __put_anon_vma+0x61/0xb0
[<ffffffff8115b5b1>] __put_anon_vma+0x61/0xb0
[<ffffffff8115bb8b>] unlink_anon_vmas+0x13b/0x1a0
[<ffffffff8114fac1>] free_pgtables+0x91/0x120
[<ffffffff81156101>] exit_mmap+0xb1/0x120
[<ffffffff8104e24b>] mmput+0x7b/0x120
[<ffffffff81053d68>] exit_mm+0x108/0x130
[<ffffffff8153aa70>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x50
[<ffffffff81056277>] do_exit+0x167/0x970
[<ffffffff811b36c3>] ? mntput+0x23/0x40
[<ffffffff81192f6d>] ? fput+0x1ad/0x280
[<ffffffff8153ae59>] ? retint_swapgs+0x13/0x1b
[<ffffffff81056adb>] do_group_exit+0x5b/0xd0
[<ffffffff81056b67>] sys_exit_group+0x17/0x20
[<ffffffff81543729>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
--
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