* linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
@ 2011-01-13 15:34 Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2011-01-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Smalley, James Morris, Eric Paris, Paul Menage
Cc: linux-kernel, linux-security-module, containers
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3164 bytes --]
Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
[ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
[ 85.101530]
[ 85.101531] =============================================
[ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
[ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
[ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009]
[ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
[ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
[ 85.102009]
[ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
[ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
[ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
[ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
[ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
[ 85.102009]
[ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
[ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
[ 85.102009] Call Trace:
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
Any ideas?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
2011-01-13 15:34 linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir Valdis.Kletnieks
@ 2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Paris @ 2011-01-14 2:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valdis.Kletnieks
Cc: Stephen Smalley, James Morris, Eric Paris, Paul Menage,
linux-kernel, linux-security-module, containers
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:34 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
>
> Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
> address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
> every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
> nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
Not an SELinux issue. selinux_inode_rmdir() on the stack trace is just
left over junk. The vfs doesn't call into the filesystem rmdir code
(cgroup_rmdir()) until after the selinux code has already returned. So
cgroup people, you might as well pretend that wasn't on the stack trace
at all.
-Eric
>
> The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
>
> [ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
> [ 85.101530]
> [ 85.101531] =============================================
> [ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
> [ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
> [ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
> [ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
> [ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] Call Trace:
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>
> Any ideas?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
2011-01-13 15:34 linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
@ 2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eric Paris @ 2011-01-14 2:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ
Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Eric Paris,
Paul Menage, Stephen Smalley
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:34 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
> Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
>
> Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
> address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
> every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
> nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
Not an SELinux issue. selinux_inode_rmdir() on the stack trace is just
left over junk. The vfs doesn't call into the filesystem rmdir code
(cgroup_rmdir()) until after the selinux code has already returned. So
cgroup people, you might as well pretend that wasn't on the stack trace
at all.
-Eric
>
> The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
>
> [ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
> [ 85.101530]
> [ 85.101531] =============================================
> [ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
> [ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
> [ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
> [ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
> [ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] Call Trace:
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>
> Any ideas?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
2011-01-13 15:34 linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
@ 2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
3 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2011-01-14 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ
Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Eric Paris,
Paul Menage, Stephen Smalley
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
>
> Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
> address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
> every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
> nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
>
> The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
>
> [ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
> [ 85.101530]
> [ 85.101531] =============================================
> [ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
> [ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
> [ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
> [ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
> [ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] Call Trace:
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>
> Any ideas?
It looks like it is just a missing parent->child lock order annotation, but
mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What does
cgroup_clear_directory() look like in mmotm?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
2011-01-13 15:34 linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir Valdis.Kletnieks
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-14 4:06 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <AANLkTikEYgsOjVhmuVCM8rzGRrQxRM0FO475=CEBEtxD-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
3 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2011-01-14 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Valdis.Kletnieks
Cc: Stephen Smalley, James Morris, Eric Paris, Paul Menage,
linux-kernel, linux-security-module, containers
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
>
> Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
> address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
> every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
> nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
>
> The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
>
> [ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
> [ 85.101530]
> [ 85.101531] =============================================
> [ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
> [ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
> [ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
> [ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
> [ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] Call Trace:
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>
> Any ideas?
It looks like it is just a missing parent->child lock order annotation, but
mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What does
cgroup_clear_directory() look like in mmotm?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
@ 2011-01-14 4:06 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <4D2FCBDC.5040107-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2011-01-14 4:10 ` Nick Piggin
[not found] ` <AANLkTikEYgsOjVhmuVCM8rzGRrQxRM0FO475=CEBEtxD-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Li Zefan @ 2011-01-14 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks, containers, linux-kernel, linux-security-module,
Eric Paris, Paul Menage, Stephen Smalley
Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>> Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
>>
>> Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
>> address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
>> every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
>> nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
>>
>> The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
>>
>> [ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>> [ 85.101530]
>> [ 85.101531] =============================================
>> [ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> [ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
>> [ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
>> [ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009]
>> [ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
>> [ 85.102009]
>> [ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
>> [ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
>> [ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
>> [ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
>> [ 85.102009]
>> [ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
>> [ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
>> [ 85.102009] Call Trace:
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> [ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> It looks like it is just a missing parent->child lock order annotation, but
> mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What does
> cgroup_clear_directory() look like in mmotm?
It's not from cgroup_clear_directory()..
This should fix it:
=========================
From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removal
Commit 2fd6b7f5 ("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry
lock, which caused a lockdep warning.
Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index 5c5f4cc..db983e2 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry)
parent = dentry->d_parent;
spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
- spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
list_del_init(&dentry->d_u.d_child);
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
--
1.7.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread[parent not found: <4D2FCBDC.5040107-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
[not found] ` <4D2FCBDC.5040107-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
@ 2011-01-14 4:10 ` Nick Piggin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2011-01-14 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Li Zefan
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ,
containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Eric Paris,
Paul Menage, Stephen Smalley
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Li Zefan <lizf-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>> It looks like it is just a missing parent->child lock order annotation, but
>> mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What does
>> cgroup_clear_directory() look like in mmotm?
>
> It's not from cgroup_clear_directory()..
>
> This should fix it:
Yep, thanks!
> =========================
>
> From: Li Zefan <lizf-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removal
>
> Commit 2fd6b7f5 ("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry
> lock, which caused a lockdep warning.
>
> Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 5c5f4cc..db983e2 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry)
>
> parent = dentry->d_parent;
> spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
> - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
> list_del_init(&dentry->d_u.d_child);
> spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
> --
> 1.7.3.1
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
2011-01-14 4:06 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <4D2FCBDC.5040107-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
@ 2011-01-14 4:10 ` Nick Piggin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Nick Piggin @ 2011-01-14 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Li Zefan
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks, containers, linux-kernel, linux-security-module,
Eric Paris, Paul Menage, Stephen Smalley
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:
>> It looks like it is just a missing parent->child lock order annotation, but
>> mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What does
>> cgroup_clear_directory() look like in mmotm?
>
> It's not from cgroup_clear_directory()..
>
> This should fix it:
Yep, thanks!
> =========================
>
> From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removal
>
> Commit 2fd6b7f5 ("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry
> lock, which caused a lockdep warning.
>
> Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 5c5f4cc..db983e2 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry)
>
> parent = dentry->d_parent;
> spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
> - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
> + spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
> list_del_init(&dentry->d_u.d_child);
> spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
> spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
> --
> 1.7.3.1
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <AANLkTikEYgsOjVhmuVCM8rzGRrQxRM0FO475=CEBEtxD-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
[not found] ` <AANLkTikEYgsOjVhmuVCM8rzGRrQxRM0FO475=CEBEtxD-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
@ 2011-01-14 4:06 ` Li Zefan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Li Zefan @ 2011-01-14 4:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nick Piggin
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ,
containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Eric Paris,
Paul Menage, Stephen Smalley
Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
>>
>> Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
>> address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
>> every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
>> nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
>>
>> The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
>>
>> [ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>> [ 85.101530]
>> [ 85.101531] =============================================
>> [ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
>> [ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
>> [ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
>> [ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
>> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009]
>> [ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
>> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
>> [ 85.102009]
>> [ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
>> [ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
>> [ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
>> [ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
>> [ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
>> [ 85.102009]
>> [ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
>> [ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
>> [ 85.102009] Call Trace:
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
>> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> [ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> It looks like it is just a missing parent->child lock order annotation, but
> mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What does
> cgroup_clear_directory() look like in mmotm?
It's not from cgroup_clear_directory()..
This should fix it:
=========================
From: Li Zefan <lizf-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removal
Commit 2fd6b7f5 ("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry
lock, which caused a lockdep warning.
Reported-by: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ@public.gmane.org>
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
---
kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
index 5c5f4cc..db983e2 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry)
parent = dentry->d_parent;
spin_lock(&parent->d_lock);
- spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock);
+ spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED);
list_del_init(&dentry->d_u.d_child);
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock);
--
1.7.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
@ 2011-01-13 15:34 Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ @ 2011-01-13 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Smalley, James Morris, Eric Paris, Paul Menage
Cc: containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA,
linux-security-module-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3164 bytes --]
Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
[ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
[ 85.101530]
[ 85.101531] =============================================
[ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
[ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
[ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009]
[ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
[ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
[ 85.102009]
[ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
[ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
[ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
[ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
[ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
[ 85.102009]
[ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
[ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
[ 85.102009] Call Trace:
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
[ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
Any ideas?
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 206 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-01-14 4:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-01-13 15:34 linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir Valdis.Kletnieks
2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
2011-01-14 2:47 ` Eric Paris
2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-14 3:35 ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-14 4:06 ` Li Zefan
[not found] ` <4D2FCBDC.5040107-BthXqXjhjHXQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org>
2011-01-14 4:10 ` Nick Piggin
2011-01-14 4:10 ` Nick Piggin
[not found] ` <AANLkTikEYgsOjVhmuVCM8rzGRrQxRM0FO475=CEBEtxD-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2011-01-14 4:06 ` Li Zefan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-01-13 15:34 Valdis.Kletnieks-PjAqaU27lzQ
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.