All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
To: Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc8: possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:55:10 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080121025510.GY155259@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0801182240310.6521@sheep.housecafe.de>

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:45:17PM +0100, Christian Kujau wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> just FYI, upgrading to -rc8 gave the following messages in kern.log in
> the morning hours, when the backups were run:
> 
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.24-rc8 #2
> -------------------------------------------------------
> rsync/23295 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (iprune_mutex){--..}, at: [<c017a552>] shrink_icache_memory+0x72/0x220
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<c0275056>] xfs_ilock+0x96/0xb0
> 
> which lock already depends on the new lock.

memory reclaim can occur when an inode lock is held,
causing i_iolock -> iprune_mutex to occur. This is quite
common.

During reclaim, while holding iprune_mutex, we lock a
different inode to complete the cleaning up of it,
resulting in iprune_mutex -> i_iolock.

At this point, lockdep gets upset and blats out a warning.

But, there's no problem here as it is always safe for us
to take the i_iolock in inode reclaim because it can never
be the same as the i_iolock that we've taken prior to memory
reclaim being entered. Therefore false positive.

Lockdep folk - we really need an annotation to prevent this false
positive from being reported because we are getting reports at
least once a week....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group

      reply	other threads:[~2008-01-21  2:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-18 21:45 2.6.24-rc8: possible circular locking dependency detected Christian Kujau
2008-01-21  2:55 ` David Chinner [this message]

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=20080121025510.GY155259@sgi.com \
    --to=dgc@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lists@nerdbynature.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.