lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 3.0 release - btrfs possible locking deadlock
    Date
    Excerpts from Ed Tomlinson's message of 2011-07-22 19:21:00 -0400:
    > On Thursday 21 July 2011 22:59:53 Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > > So there it is. Gone are the 2.6.<bignum> days, and 3.0 is out.
    > >
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > Managed to get this with btrfs rsync(ing) from ext4 to a btrfs fs with three partitions using raid1.
    >
    > [16018.211493] device fsid f7186eeb-60df-4b1a-890a-4a1eb42f81fe devid 1 transid 10 /dev/sdd4
    > [16018.230643] btrfs: use lzo compression
    > [16018.234619] btrfs: enabling disk space caching
    > [25949.414011]
    > [25949.414011] =======================================================
    > [25949.416549] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
    > [25949.423187] 3.0.0-crc+ #348
    > [25949.423187] -------------------------------------------------------
    > [25949.423187] rsync/20237 is trying to acquire lock:
    > [25949.423187] (btrfs-extent-01){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa047ce88>] btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x78/0xb0 [btrfs]
    > [25949.423187]
    > [25949.423187] but task is already holding lock:
    > [25949.423187] (&(&eb->lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa047cee2>] btrfs_clear_lock_blocking+0x22/0x30 [btrfs]
    > [25949.423187]
    > [25949.423187] which lock already depends on the new lock.
    >
    > Kernel is 3.0.0 without any extras.
    >
    > Ideas?

    Did this actually deadlock? lockdep has issues with the btrfs
    clear_lock_blocking code, and I need to redo the annotations a bit. The
    problem is that we have the same lock class representing unrelated locks from
    different trees.

    -chris


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-25 21:53    [W:0.029 / U:92.272 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site