Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [BUG?] possible recursive locking detected | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:29:57 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 22:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:05:21 +0200 > Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@sf-tec.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I did some memory stress test (allocating and mlock()ing a huge number of > > pages) from userspace. At the very beginning of that I got that error long > > before the system got unresponsible and the oom killer dropped in. > > > > Eike > > > > ============================================= > > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > > kded/5304 is trying to acquire lock: > > (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c11f476e>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > > > > but task is already holding lock: > > (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c11f476e>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > 3 locks held by kded/5304: > > #0: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c11f476e>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > > #1: (shrinker_rwsem){----}, at: [<c1046312>] shrink_slab+0x25/0x136 > > #2: (&type->s_umount_key#14){----}, at: [<c106be2e>] prune_dcache+0xf6/0x144 > > > > stack backtrace: > > [<c1003aa9>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x54/0xfd > > [<c1004915>] show_trace+0xd/0x10 > > [<c100492f>] dump_stack+0x17/0x1c > > [<c102e0e1>] __lock_acquire+0x753/0x99c > > [<c102e5ac>] lock_acquire+0x4a/0x6a > > [<c11f4609>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xb0/0x1f4 > > [<c11f476e>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24 > > [<f0854fc4>] ntfs_put_inode+0x3b/0x74 [ntfs] > > [<c106cf3f>] iput+0x33/0x6a > > [<c106b707>] dentry_iput+0x5b/0x73 > > [<c106bd15>] prune_one_dentry+0x56/0x79 > > [<c106be42>] prune_dcache+0x10a/0x144 > > [<c106be95>] shrink_dcache_memory+0x19/0x31 > > [<c10463bd>] shrink_slab+0xd0/0x136 > > [<c1047494>] try_to_free_pages+0x129/0x1d5 > > [<c1043d91>] __alloc_pages+0x18e/0x284 > > [<c104044b>] read_cache_page+0x59/0x131 > > [<c109e96f>] ext2_get_page+0x1c/0x1ff > > [<c109ebc4>] ext2_find_entry+0x72/0x139 > > [<c109ec99>] ext2_inode_by_name+0xe/0x2e > > [<c10a1cad>] ext2_lookup+0x1f/0x65 > > [<c1064661>] do_lookup+0xa0/0x134 > > [<c1064e9a>] __link_path_walk+0x7a5/0xbe4 > > [<c1065329>] link_path_walk+0x50/0xca > > [<c106586d>] do_path_lookup+0x212/0x25a > > [<c1065da9>] __user_walk_fd+0x2d/0x41 > > [<c10600bd>] vfs_stat_fd+0x19/0x40 > > [<c10600f5>] vfs_stat+0x11/0x13 > > [<c1060826>] sys_stat64+0x14/0x2a > > [<c1002845>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d > > We hold the ext2 directory mutex, and ntfs_put_inode is trying to take an > ntfs i_mutex. Not a deadlock as such, but it could become one in ntfs if > ntfs ever does a __GFP_WAIT allocation inside i_mutex, which it surely > does.
I talked with Al about this one briefly yesterday; he considers it not a bug but personally I'd be a lot happier if ext2 would use GFP_NOFS for this allocation. Well not so much ext2 as read_cache_page() which is generic code....
-- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |