All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 -- BUG: possible circular locking deadlock detected!
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:59:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060610075954.GA30119@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1149840563.3619.46.camel@imp.csi.cam.ac.uk>


* Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> The normal access pattern (B) where the runlist lock is always taken 
> first.  And the mft record lock is taken second and only if the 
> runlist is incomplete in-memory.
> 
> Of course on file modification, this is also the case, the runlist 
> lock is taken first, then the mft record lock is taken and thus both 
> the runlist and the inode can be updated with the new data (e.g. on a 
> file extend).

thanks for the detailed explanation!

I have annotated the code for the lock validator as much as i could, by:

- excluding ntfs_fill_super() from the locking rules,

- 'splitting' the MFT's mrec_lock and runlist->lock locking rules from 
  the other inodes's locking rules,

- splitting the mrec_lock rules of extent inodes. (We map them
  recursively while having the main inode mft record mapped. The nesting
  is safe because inode->extent_inode is a noncircular relation.)

Still there seems to be a case that the validator does not grok: 
load_attribute_list() seems to take the lock in the opposite order from 
what you described above. What locking detail am i missing? [let me know 
if you need all dependency events leading up to this message from the 
validator]

	Ingo

=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
-------------------------------------------------------
ls/2581 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&rl->lock){----}, at: [<c01c1f5b>] load_attribute_list+0xfb/0x3c0

but task is already holding lock:
 (&ni->mrec_lock){--..}, at: [<c01d50c5>] map_mft_record_type+0x55/0x2d0

which lock already depends on the new lock,
which could lead to circular locking dependencies.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&ni->mrec_lock){--..}:
       [<c01394df>] lock_acquire+0x6f/0x90
       [<c0346183>] mutex_lock_nested+0x73/0x2a0
       [<c01d5e43>] map_mft_record+0x53/0x2c0
       [<c01c54f8>] ntfs_map_runlist_nolock+0x3d8/0x530
       [<c01c5bc1>] ntfs_map_runlist+0x41/0x70
       [<c01c1929>] ntfs_readpage+0x8c9/0x9b0
       [<c0142ffc>] read_cache_page+0xac/0x150
       [<c01e212d>] ntfs_statfs+0x41d/0x660
       [<c0163254>] vfs_statfs+0x54/0x70
       [<c0163288>] vfs_statfs64+0x18/0x30
       [<c0163384>] sys_statfs64+0x64/0xa0
       [<c0347dcd>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d

-> #0 (&rl->lock){----}:
       [<c01394df>] lock_acquire+0x6f/0x90
       [<c0134c8a>] down_read_nested+0x2a/0x40
       [<c01c1f5b>] load_attribute_list+0xfb/0x3c0
       [<c01d323e>] ntfs_read_locked_inode+0xcee/0x15d0
       [<c01d4735>] ntfs_iget+0x55/0x80
       [<c01db3da>] ntfs_lookup+0x14a/0x740
       [<c01736b6>] do_lookup+0x126/0x150
       [<c0173ef3>] __link_path_walk+0x813/0xe50
       [<c017457c>] link_path_walk+0x4c/0xf0
       [<c0174a2d>] do_path_lookup+0xad/0x260
       [<c0175228>] __user_walk_fd+0x38/0x60
       [<c016e3be>] vfs_lstat_fd+0x1e/0x50
       [<c016e401>] vfs_lstat+0x11/0x20
       [<c016ec04>] sys_lstat64+0x14/0x30
       [<c0347dcd>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d

other info that might help us debug this:

2 locks held by ls/2581:
 #0:  (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0346108>] mutex_lock+0x8/0x10
 #1:  (&ni->mrec_lock){--..}, at: [<c01d50c5>] map_mft_record_type+0x55/0x2d0

stack backtrace:
 [<c0104bf2>] show_trace+0x12/0x20
 [<c0104c19>] dump_stack+0x19/0x20
 [<c0136ef1>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x61/0x70
 [<c01389ff>] __lock_acquire+0x74f/0xde0
 [<c01394df>] lock_acquire+0x6f/0x90
 [<c0134c8a>] down_read_nested+0x2a/0x40
 [<c01c1f5b>] load_attribute_list+0xfb/0x3c0
 [<c01d323e>] ntfs_read_locked_inode+0xcee/0x15d0
 [<c01d4735>] ntfs_iget+0x55/0x80
 [<c01db3da>] ntfs_lookup+0x14a/0x740
 [<c01736b6>] do_lookup+0x126/0x150
 [<c0173ef3>] __link_path_walk+0x813/0xe50
 [<c017457c>] link_path_walk+0x4c/0xf0
 [<c0174a2d>] do_path_lookup+0xad/0x260
 [<c0175228>] __user_walk_fd+0x38/0x60
 [<c016e3be>] vfs_lstat_fd+0x1e/0x50
 [<c016e401>] vfs_lstat+0x11/0x20
 [<c016ec04>] sys_lstat64+0x14/0x30
 [<c0347dcd>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d

  reply	other threads:[~2006-06-10  8:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-06-08  4:27 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 -- BUG: possible circular locking deadlock detected! Miles Lane
2006-06-08  7:32 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-08  9:55   ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-08 10:53     ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-08 11:23       ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-09  8:09         ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-10  7:59           ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-06-10  8:48             ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-11  5:31               ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-11  7:10                 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-12  8:31                   ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-12  8:47                     ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-12  9:40                       ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-12 10:24                         ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-12 10:56                           ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-13  5:41                             ` Miles Lane
2006-06-13 21:18                               ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-08 16:11       ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-08 21:17         ` Anton Altaparmakov
2006-06-09  7:19       ` Ingo Molnar
2006-06-09  8:31         ` Anton Altaparmakov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20060610075954.GA30119@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=aia21@cam.ac.uk \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miles.lane@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.