lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [cgroup or VFS ?] INFO: possible recursive locking detected
CC: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org

> The cause is after alloc_super() and then retry, an old entry in list
> fs_supers is found, so grab_super(old) is called, but both functions
> hold s_umount lock:
>

Hi Al Viro,

I hacked into the kernel with the patch below (I think It's ok for me
to comment out bdev->bd_mount_sem for testing):

========================
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ struct super_block *sget(struct file_system_type *type,
struct super_block *s = NULL;
struct super_block *old;
int err;
+ static int count;

retry:
spin_lock(&sb_lock);
@@ -354,6 +355,10 @@ retry:
}
if (!s) {
spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
+ if (!strcmp(type->name, "ext3")) {
+ if (count++ % 2 == 0)
+ msleep(150);
+ }
s = alloc_super(type);
if (!s)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -770,9 +775,9 @@ int get_sb_bdev(struct file_system_type *fs_type,
* will protect the lockfs code from trying to start a snapshot
* while we are mounting
*/
- down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
+// down(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
s = sget(fs_type, test_bdev_super, set_bdev_super, bdev);
- up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
+// up(&bdev->bd_mount_sem);
if (IS_ERR(s))
goto error_s;
========================

And ran 2 threads:
for ((; ;)) # thread 1
{
mount -t ext3 /dev/sda9 /mnt1
umount /mnt1
}
for ((; ;)) # thread 2
{
mount -t ext3 /dev/sda9 /mnt2
umount /mnt2
}
And I got the same lockdep warning immediately, so I think it's
VFS's issue.

=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.28-mc #497
---------------------------------------------
mount/3103 is trying to acquire lock:
(&type->s_umount_key#15){----}, at: [<c04a2a56>] sget+0x58/0x33d
but task is already holding lock:
(&type->s_umount_key#15){----}, at: [<c04a2c01>] sget+0x203/0x33d
other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by mount/3103:
#0: (&type->s_umount_key#15){----}, at: [<c04a2c01>] sget+0x203/0x33d
stack backtrace:
Pid: 3103, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.28-mc #497
Call Trace:
[<c044e01a>] validate_chain+0x4c6/0xbbd
[<c043679c>] ? lock_timer_base+0x24/0x43
[<c044ed87>] __lock_acquire+0x676/0x700
[<c044ee6e>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
[<c04a2a56>] ? sget+0x58/0x33d
[<c06223d8>] down_write+0x34/0x50
[<c04a2a56>] ? sget+0x58/0x33d
[<c04a2a56>] sget+0x58/0x33d
[<c04a26f8>] ? set_bdev_super+0x0/0x17
[<c04a270f>] ? test_bdev_super+0x0/0x16
[<c04a3510>] get_sb_bdev+0x52/0x125
[<c04b3d00>] ? alloc_vfsmnt+0x71/0xe8
[<c0488e9a>] ? kstrdup+0x31/0x53
[<f80ac930>] ext3_get_sb+0x18/0x1a [ext3]
[<f80adef0>] ? ext3_fill_super+0x0/0x1438 [ext3]
[<c04a3195>] vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b
[<c04a321e>] do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf
[<c04b4786>] do_mount+0x5dc/0x633
[<c04b311e>] ? copy_mount_options+0x2c/0x111
[<c04b4846>] sys_mount+0x69/0xa0
[<c0403351>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31

> struct super_block *sget(...)
> {
> ...
> retry:
> spin_lock(&sb_lock);
> if (test) {
> list_for_each_entry(old, &type->fs_supers, s_instances) {
> if (!test(old, data))
> continue;
> if (!grab_super(old)) <--- 2nd: down_write(&old->s_umount);
> goto retry;
> if (s)
> destroy_super(s);
> return old;
> }
> }
> if (!s) {
> spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
> s = alloc_super(type); <--- 1th: down_write(&s->s_umount)
> if (!s)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> goto retry;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> It seems like a false positive, and seems like VFS but not cgroup needs
> to be fixed ?
>
> And I noticed this commit:
>
> commit 897c6ff9568bcb102ffc6b465ebe1def0cba829d
> Author: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> Date: Mon Jul 3 00:25:28 2006 -0700
>
> [PATCH] lockdep: annotate sb ->s_umount
>
> The s_umount rwsem needs to be classified as per-superblock since it's
> perfectly legit to keep multiple of those recursively in the VFS locking
> rules.
>
> Has no effect on non-lockdep kernels.
>
> The changelog said s_umount needs to be classified as per-sb, but actually
> it made it as per-filesystem. And there is no way to mark all instances
> of a given lock as distinct.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-08 04:49    [W:0.076 / U:3.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site