Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [BUG] perf_event: circular lock dependency | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:32:23 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 10:19 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Intel Core, one of my test programs generate this kind of > warning when it unmaps the sampling buffer after it has closed > the events fds.
> [ 1729.441066] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > [ 1729.441092] > [ 1729.441093] -> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}: > [ 1729.441123] [<ffffffff81077f97>] validate_chain+0xc17/0x1360 > [ 1729.441151] [<ffffffff81078a53>] __lock_acquire+0x373/0xb30 > [ 1729.441170] [<ffffffff810792ac>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x100 > [ 1729.441189] [<ffffffff810e74a4>] might_fault+0x84/0xb0 > [ 1729.441207] [<ffffffff810c3605>] perf_read+0x135/0x2d0 > [ 1729.441225] [<ffffffff8110c604>] vfs_read+0xc4/0x180 > [ 1729.441245] [<ffffffff8110ca10>] sys_read+0x50/0x90 > [ 1729.441263] [<ffffffff81002ceb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > [ 1729.441284] > [ 1729.441284] -> #0 (&ctx->mutex){+.+...}: > [ 1729.441313] [<ffffffff810786cd>] validate_chain+0x134d/0x1360 > [ 1729.441332] [<ffffffff81078a53>] __lock_acquire+0x373/0xb30 > [ 1729.441351] [<ffffffff810792ac>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x100 > [ 1729.441369] [<ffffffff81442e59>] mutex_lock_nested+0x69/0x340 > [ 1729.441389] [<ffffffff810c2ebd>] perf_event_release_kernel+0x2d/0xe0 > [ 1729.441409] [<ffffffff810c2f8b>] perf_release+0x1b/0x20 > [ 1729.441426] [<ffffffff8110d051>] __fput+0x101/0x230 > [ 1729.441444] [<ffffffff8110d457>] fput+0x17/0x20 > [ 1729.441462] [<ffffffff810e98d1>] remove_vma+0x51/0x90 > [ 1729.441480] [<ffffffff810ea708>] do_munmap+0x2e8/0x340 > [ 1729.441498] [<ffffffff810ebac0>] sys_munmap+0x50/0x80 > [ 1729.441516] [<ffffffff81002ceb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > [ 1729.441535]
Crap, the thing is right.. you've been using group reads, which require holding the ctx->mutex to ensure the group doesn't change while you're reading it, leading to this inversion thing...
Not sure where to break this loop though, the hacky way is pushing all of perf_event_release_kernel() into a work, but that's yucky.. Let me ponder this a bit more.
| |