Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:12:59 +0100 | From | "Daniel J Blueman" <> | Subject | [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock... |
| |
On 2.6.27-rc4 with various debug options enabled, lockdep claims lock ordering issues with XFS [1] - easiest reproducer is just running xfs_fsr. Mount options I was using were 'nobarrier,noatime,nodiratime'.
Thanks, Daniel
--- [1]
======================================================= [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1 ------------------------------------------------------- xfs_fsr/5763 is trying to acquire lock: (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
but task is already holding lock: (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>] xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}: [<ffffffff8026b011>] __lock_acquire+0xdb1/0x1150 [<ffffffff8026b441>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0 [<ffffffff8025d967>] down_write_nested+0x57/0x90 [<ffffffff803ad915>] xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0 [<ffffffff803cb086>] xfs_lock_two_inodes+0x106/0x120 [<ffffffff803b78e0>] xfs_swap_extents+0x70/0x5b0 [<ffffffff803b7f68>] xfs_swapext+0x148/0x150 [<ffffffff803d8195>] xfs_ioctl+0x6a5/0x810 [<ffffffff803d58bd>] xfs_file_ioctl_invis+0x3d/0x80 [<ffffffff802d4586>] vfs_ioctl+0x36/0xb0 [<ffffffff802d488b>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x28b/0x2f0 [<ffffffff802d493f>] sys_ioctl+0x4f/0x80 [<ffffffff8020c74b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
-> #0 (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}: [<ffffffff8026b0f5>] __lock_acquire+0xe95/0x1150 [<ffffffff8026b441>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0 [<ffffffff8025d967>] down_write_nested+0x57/0x90 [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0 [<ffffffff803caff0>] xfs_lock_two_inodes+0x70/0x120 [<ffffffff803b7b03>] xfs_swap_extents+0x293/0x5b0 [<ffffffff803b7f68>] xfs_swapext+0x148/0x150 [<ffffffff803d8195>] xfs_ioctl+0x6a5/0x810 [<ffffffff803d58bd>] xfs_file_ioctl_invis+0x3d/0x80 [<ffffffff802d4586>] vfs_ioctl+0x36/0xb0 [<ffffffff802d488b>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x28b/0x2f0 [<ffffffff802d493f>] sys_ioctl+0x4f/0x80 [<ffffffff8020c74b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by xfs_fsr/5763: #0: (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>] xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0 #1: (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>] xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
stack backtrace: Pid: 5763, comm: xfs_fsr Not tainted 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
Call Trace: [<ffffffff80268d1f>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x9f/0xe0 [<ffffffff8026b0f5>] __lock_acquire+0xe95/0x1150 [<ffffffff8026b441>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0 [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] ? xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0 [<ffffffff8025d967>] down_write_nested+0x57/0x90 [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] ? xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0 [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0 [<ffffffff803caff0>] xfs_lock_two_inodes+0x70/0x120 [<ffffffff803b7b03>] xfs_swap_extents+0x293/0x5b0 [<ffffffff803b7f68>] xfs_swapext+0x148/0x150 [<ffffffff803d8195>] xfs_ioctl+0x6a5/0x810 [<ffffffff802148b0>] ? native_sched_clock+0x70/0xa0 [<ffffffff802e24f2>] ? mnt_drop_write+0x62/0x140 [<ffffffff803d58bd>] xfs_file_ioctl_invis+0x3d/0x80 [<ffffffff802d4586>] vfs_ioctl+0x36/0xb0 [<ffffffff802d488b>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x28b/0x2f0 [<ffffffff8064128e>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f [<ffffffff802d493f>] sys_ioctl+0x4f/0x80 [<ffffffff8020c74b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b -- Daniel J Blueman
| |