[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1405310745001.10717@i7.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 07:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] Re: fs/dcache.c - BUG: soft lockup - CPU#5 stuck for
22s! [systemd-udevd:1667]
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> One of my machines got the lockdep report below when booting a kernel
> that contained these patches.
I think this is just a lacking annotation.
We do nest dentry d_lock locking, and in order to avoid ABBA deadlocks the
rule is that we lock things in topological order (parent dentry first).
lock_parent() is very careful about that, but doesn't actually tell
lockdep about it.
This trivial oneliner should fix it.
Linus
---
fs/dcache.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index bce851dc03ef..be2bea834bf4 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -553,7 +553,7 @@ again:
}
rcu_read_unlock();
if (parent != dentry)
- spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
else
parent = NULL;
return parent;
--
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