Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:20:30 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes |
| |
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 05:16:30PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > sysrq-d: http://fpaste.org/ow9O/ > > Ugh. I'm adding PeterZ to the cc, just to see if he can make more sense of it. > > Peter, is there no way to make the lock thing print not just the lock > class name, but also the pointer to the actual *instance* of the lock > held? > > Also, it's a bit unclear to me, but I *think* that most of those users > don't actually "hold" the lock - they are waiting for it. Yes/no?
Has to be, unless something _very_ odd is going on... Just how many ->s_vfs_rename_mutex are there on that box?
> Does > the lockdep information have the capability to distinguish between > "waiting for" vs "actually successfully owns the lock"?
Another question re lockdep - does it scream loudly if process returns to userland without having released some lock? I hope so, but I've never checked that... ;-/
| |