lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-22 23:15    [W:0.078 / U:2.608 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site