Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:16:34 -0500 | From | Josh Boyer <> | Subject | Re: hugetlbfs lockdep spew revisited. |
| |
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:08:57PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > Remember this ? https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/4/15/272 > Josh took a stab at fixing it in e096d0c7e2e4e5893792db865dd065ac73cf1f00, > but it seems to still be there.
I think Tyler Hicks actually noticed this a while ago, but his patch has been waiting on comment from Al and Christoph:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/58795/focus=59565
I've been hesitant to comment because I obviously screwed up once already. We could try this patch in Fedora for a while if Al and company don't speak up soon.
josh
> > Dave > > > ====================================================== > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 3.3.0-rc3+ #2 Not tainted > ------------------------------------------------------- > trinity/30663 is trying to acquire lock: > (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81298169>] hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0x89/0x140 > > but task is already holding lock: > (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff81182d97>] sys_mmap_pgoff+0x1d7/0x230 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}: > [<ffffffff810d073d>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0x220 > [<ffffffff811789c0>] might_fault+0x80/0xb0 > [<ffffffff811d2997>] filldir+0x77/0xe0 > [<ffffffff811e61ae>] dcache_readdir+0x5e/0x220 > [<ffffffff811d2c68>] vfs_readdir+0xb8/0xf0 > [<ffffffff811d2d99>] sys_getdents+0x89/0x100 > [<ffffffff816a5b69>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+...}: > [<ffffffff810d0008>] __lock_acquire+0x1bf8/0x1c20 > [<ffffffff810d073d>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0x220 > [<ffffffff8169a5b9>] __mutex_lock_common+0x59/0x500 > [<ffffffff8169ab94>] mutex_lock_nested+0x44/0x50 > [<ffffffff81298169>] hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0x89/0x140 > [<ffffffff811826a9>] mmap_region+0x369/0x4f0 > [<ffffffff81182b9f>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x36f/0x390 > [<ffffffff81182db7>] sys_mmap_pgoff+0x1f7/0x230 > [<ffffffff8101eda2>] sys_mmap+0x22/0x30 > [<ffffffff816a5b69>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(&mm->mmap_sem); > lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); > lock(&mm->mmap_sem); > lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 1 lock held by trinity/30663: > #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff81182d97>] sys_mmap_pgoff+0x1d7/0x230 > > stack backtrace: > Pid: 30663, comm: trinity Not tainted 3.3.0-rc3+ #2 > Call Trace: > [<ffffffff816924d7>] print_circular_bug+0x1fb/0x20c > [<ffffffff810d0008>] __lock_acquire+0x1bf8/0x1c20 > [<ffffffff816a1c2d>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x9d/0xd0 > [<ffffffff811a40cc>] ? deactivate_slab+0x54c/0x5f0 > [<ffffffff810d073d>] lock_acquire+0x9d/0x220 > [<ffffffff81298169>] ? hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0x89/0x140 > [<ffffffff810d12fd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x10d/0x1a0 > [<ffffffff8169a5b9>] __mutex_lock_common+0x59/0x500 > [<ffffffff81298169>] ? hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0x89/0x140 > [<ffffffff811825e5>] ? mmap_region+0x2a5/0x4f0 > [<ffffffff81298169>] ? hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0x89/0x140 > [<ffffffff8169ab94>] mutex_lock_nested+0x44/0x50 > [<ffffffff81298169>] hugetlbfs_file_mmap+0x89/0x140 > [<ffffffff811826a9>] mmap_region+0x369/0x4f0 > [<ffffffff812c1e9a>] ? file_map_prot_check+0xaa/0xe0 > [<ffffffff81182b9f>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x36f/0x390 > [<ffffffff81182d97>] ? sys_mmap_pgoff+0x1d7/0x230 > [<ffffffff81182db7>] sys_mmap_pgoff+0x1f7/0x230 > [<ffffffff810d12fd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x10d/0x1a0 > [<ffffffff8101eda2>] sys_mmap+0x22/0x30 > [<ffffffff816a5b69>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b >
| |