Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Nov 2011 20:05:53 +0000 | From | Luis Henriques <> | Subject | Re: Linus GIT - INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected |
| |
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 08:52:12PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 19:11 +0000, Luis Henriques wrote: > > [ 12.948038] -> #0 (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.+.}: > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff8108ff9f>] __lock_acquire+0x17bf/0x2020 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff81092e4f>] lock_acquire+0xaf/0x1f0 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff8135b2a5>] __mutex_lock_common+0x65/0x4d0 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff8135b76b>] mutex_lock_killable_nested+0x1b/0x20 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff811b301e>] lock_trace+0x2e/0x80 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff811b73ab>] proc_readfd_common+0x5b/0x4b0 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff811b7835>] proc_readfd+0x15/0x20 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff8115f8f0>] vfs_readdir+0xb0/0xd0 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff8115fa09>] sys_getdents+0x89/0x100 > > [ 12.948038] [<ffffffff8135e8c2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > sb->s_type->i_mutex_key is shown as being acquired in the execve path, > > which seems to be wrong -- it was acquired in the vfs_readdir (on the 2nd > > trace). > > > > This means that the initial analysis from Vasiliy is incorrect, as he > > assumed the execve path. Or Am I interpreting this log incorrectly? > > (Probably I am...). > > ->#0 shows where sig->cred_guard_mutex was taken, as it was the first > lock there is no nesting yet and therefore the ->i_mutex_key#6 thing > should not be associated with this stacktrace. > > ->#1 shows where ->i_mutex_key#6 was taken while holding > ->cred_guard_mutex (but doesn't explicitly show where that was taken). > > Mostly ->#0 information is useless in lockdep reports and can be safely > ignored.
Interesting. Thank you for the clarification. I understood it the other way around, as the log starts with:
[ 12.948038] exe/36 is trying to acquire lock: [ 12.948038] (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811b301e>] lock_trace+0x2e/0x80 [ 12.948038] [ 12.948038] but task is already holding lock: [ 12.948038] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#6){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8115f8b8>] vfs_readdir+0x78/0xd0
This is why I thought the "useless information" was in ->#1 (for the i_mutex_key#6).
Cheers, -- Luis Henriques
| |