lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.27.9: splice_to_pipe() hung (blocked for more than 120 seconds)
On 18-01-2009 14:44, Vegard Nossum wrote:
...
>
> I have one theory. We have this skeleton:
>
> ssize_t splice_from_pipe(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct file *out,
> loff_t *ppos, size_t len, unsigned int flags,
> splice_actor *actor)
> {
> ...
> inode_double_lock(inode, pipe->inode);
> ret = __splice_from_pipe(pipe, &sd, actor);
> inode_double_unlock(inode, pipe->inode);
> ...
> }
>
> ssize_t __splice_from_pipe(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, struct splice_desc *sd,
> splice_actor *actor)
> {
> ...
> pipe_wait(pipe);
> ...
> }
>
> void pipe_wait(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe)
> {
> if (pipe->inode)
> mutex_unlock(&pipe->inode->i_mutex);
> ...
> if (pipe->inode)
> mutex_lock(&pipe->inode->i_mutex);
> }
>
> So in short: Is it possible that inode_double_lock() in
> splice_from_pipe() first locks the pipe mutex, THEN locks the
> file/socket mutex? In that case, there should be a lock imbalance,
> because pipe_wait() would unlock the pipe while the file/socket mutex
> is held.

I guess you mean a lock inversion.

>
> That would possibly explain the sporadicity of the lockup; it depends
> on the actual order of the double lock.
>
> Why doesn't lockdep report that? Hm. I guess it is because these are
> both inode mutexes and lockdep can't detect a locking imbalance within
> the same lock class?

Looks like you are right. Since there is used mutex_lock_nested() for
these locks in inode_double_lock(), lockdep could be mislead by this
"common" mutex_lock() later (but I didn't check this too much).

Jarek P.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-19 15:01    [W:0.055 / U:0.568 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site