lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [EXT4 set 5][PATCH 1/1] expand inode i_extra_isize to support features in larger inode
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:02:23 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:47 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
>
> > Peter, do you have any interest in seeing how far we can get
> > at tracking lock_page()? I'm not holding my breath, but any little bit
> > would probably help.
>
> Would this be a valid report?
>
> ( /me goes hunt a x86_64 unwinder patch that will apply to this tree.
> These stacktraces are pain )

They are. lockdep reports are a pain too. It's still a struggle to
understand wtf they're trying to tell you. Mabe it's just me.

> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 2.6.22-rt3-dirty #34
> -------------------------------------------------------
> mount/1296 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&ei->truncate_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff802f75e5>] ext3_get_blocks_handle+0x1a4/0x8f7
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (lock_page_0){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80267107>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x1ee/0x646
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (lock_page_0){--..}:
> [<ffffffff80251b26>] __lock_acquire+0xa72/0xc35
> [<ffffffff802520c9>] lock_acquire+0x48/0x61
> [<ffffffff80265e22>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0xe/0x23
> [<ffffffff80265d31>] add_to_page_cache+0x1de/0x2c1
> [<ffffffff80265e22>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0xe/0x23
> [<ffffffff80266985>] find_or_create_page+0x4c/0x73
> [<ffffffff802ae716>] __getblk+0x118/0x23c
> [<ffffffff802afa91>] __bread+0x6/0x9c
> [<ffffffff802f382d>] read_block_bitmap+0x34/0x65
> [<ffffffff802f3e1b>] ext3_free_blocks_sb+0xec/0x3d4
> [<ffffffff802f4131>] ext3_free_blocks+0x2e/0x61
> [<ffffffff802f82bc>] ext3_free_data+0xaa/0xda
> [<ffffffff802f8976>] ext3_truncate+0x4d2/0x84e
> [<ffffffff8026df5a>] pagevec_lookup+0x17/0x1e
> [<ffffffff8026e7b1>] truncate_inode_pages_range+0x1f4/0x323
> [<ffffffff802614b4>] add_preempt_count+0x14/0xe4
> [<ffffffff80304d13>] journal_stop+0x1fe/0x21d
> [<ffffffff8027661a>] vmtruncate+0xa2/0xc0
> [<ffffffff802a292b>] inode_setattr+0x22/0x10a
> [<ffffffff802f9b51>] ext3_setattr+0x136/0x18f
> [<ffffffff802a2b1d>] notify_change+0x10a/0x241
> [<ffffffff802a2b3b>] notify_change+0x128/0x241
> [<ffffffff8028e35e>] do_truncate+0x56/0x7f
> [<ffffffff8028e369>] do_truncate+0x61/0x7f
> [<ffffffff80296278>] get_write_access+0x3f/0x45
> [<ffffffff802973c7>] may_open+0x193/0x1af
> [<ffffffff80299869>] open_namei+0x2cb/0x63e
> [<ffffffff8025718b>] rt_up_read+0x53/0x5c
> [<ffffffff8056da59>] do_page_fault+0x479/0x7cc
> [<ffffffff8028dce1>] do_filp_open+0x1c/0x38
> [<ffffffff8056a4f9>] rt_spin_unlock+0x17/0x47
> [<ffffffff8028da05>] get_unused_fd+0xf9/0x107
> [<ffffffff8028dd45>] do_sys_open+0x48/0xd5
> [<ffffffff8020950e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

I guess we're doing lock_page() against a blockdev pagecache page here
while holding truncate_mutex against some S_ISREG file.

> -> #0 (&ei->truncate_mutex){--..}:
> [<ffffffff802503b9>] print_circular_bug_header+0xcc/0xd3
> [<ffffffff80251a22>] __lock_acquire+0x96e/0xc35
> [<ffffffff802520c9>] lock_acquire+0x48/0x61
> [<ffffffff802f75e5>] ext3_get_blocks_handle+0x1a4/0x8f7
> [<ffffffff8056a6d4>] _mutex_lock+0x26/0x52
> [<ffffffff802f75e5>] ext3_get_blocks_handle+0x1a4/0x8f7
> [<ffffffff802504b2>] find_usage_backwards+0xb0/0xd9
> [<ffffffff802504b2>] find_usage_backwards+0xb0/0xd9
> [<ffffffff80250d7c>] debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x11d/0x129
> [<ffffffff80250c33>] trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x115/0x138
> [<ffffffff8024efdc>] lockdep_init_map+0xac/0x41f
> [<ffffffff802614b4>] add_preempt_count+0x14/0xe4
> [<ffffffff802f8035>] ext3_get_block+0xc2/0xe4
> [<ffffffff802aeed3>] __block_prepare_write+0x195/0x442
> [<ffffffff802f7f73>] ext3_get_block+0x0/0xe4
> [<ffffffff802af19a>] block_prepare_write+0x1a/0x25
> [<ffffffff802f93e9>] ext3_prepare_write+0xb2/0x17b
> [<ffffffff802671b1>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x298/0x646
> [<ffffffff8023944e>] current_fs_time+0x3b/0x40
> [<ffffffff802614b4>] add_preempt_count+0x14/0xe4
> [<ffffffff802678ae>] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x34f/0x3b9
> [<ffffffff8024ed3d>] put_lock_stats+0xe/0x2a
> [<ffffffff80267964>] generic_file_aio_write+0x4c/0xc4
> [<ffffffff80267979>] generic_file_aio_write+0x61/0xc4
> [<ffffffff802fcf18>] ext3_orphan_del+0x53/0x19f
> [<ffffffff802f5768>] ext3_file_write+0x1c/0x9d
> [<ffffffff8028ef31>] do_sync_write+0xcc/0x10f
> [<ffffffff80246f9c>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e
> [<ffffffff8024ecfe>] get_lock_stats+0xe/0x3f
> [<ffffffff8024ed9a>] lock_release_holdtime+0x41/0x4f
> [<ffffffff8024ed3d>] put_lock_stats+0xe/0x2a
> [<ffffffff8028dfb1>] sys_fchmod+0xa3/0xbd
> [<ffffffff8056a717>] _mutex_unlock+0x17/0x20
> [<ffffffff8028f6cd>] vfs_write+0xb6/0x148
> [<ffffffff8028fc61>] sys_write+0x48/0x74
> [<ffffffff8020950e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

Here we're taking a file's truncate_mutex while holding lock_page() against
one of its pages. This is the correct lock ranking, I suppose.

This is one of those fairly common cross-inode notabugs, I suspect.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-15 20:15    [W:0.287 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site