Re: [PATCH] pnfsblock: Lookup list entry of layouts and tags in reverse order

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 01:22:52AM +0800, Zhang Jingwang wrote:
> I've sent two patches to solve this problem, you can try them.
>=20
> [PATCH] pnfs: set pnfs_curr_ld before calling initialize_mountpoint
> [PATCH] pnfs: set pnfs_blksize before calling set_pnfs_layoutdriver

Thanks.  With Benny's latest block all (97602fc6, which includes the tw=
o
patches above), I'm back to the previous behavior:

>=20
> 2010/5/18 J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>:
> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:53:11AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 05:24:39PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> > On 05/17/2010 04:53 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:28:12PM -0400, bfields wrote:
> >> > >> The one thing I've noticed is that the connectathon general t=
est has
> >> > >> started failing right at the start with an IO error. =C2=A0Th=
e last good
> >> > >> version I tested was b5c09c21, which was based on 33-rc6. =C2=
=A0The earliest
> >> > >> bad version I tested was 419312ada, based on 34-rc2. =C2=A0A =
quick look at
> >> > >> network traces from the two traces didn't turn up anything ob=
vious. =C2=A0I
> >> > >> haven't had the chance yet to look closer.

So I still see the IO error at the start of the connectathon general
tests.

Also, I get the following warning--I don't know if it's new or not.

--b.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.34-pnfs-00322-g97602fc #141
-------------------------------------------------------
cp/2789 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&(&nfsi->lo_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8124dbee>] T.947+0x4=
e/0x210

but task is already holding lock:
 (&sb->s_type->i_lock_key#11){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81223689>] nfs_upd=
atepage+0x139/0x5a0

which lock already depends on the new lock.


the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #2 (&sb->s_type->i_lock_key#11){+.+...}:
       [<ffffffff81065913>] __lock_acquire+0x1293/0x1d30
       [<ffffffff81066442>] lock_acquire+0x92/0x170
       [<ffffffff81925d5b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
       [<ffffffff81244173>] nfs_inode_set_delegation+0x203/0x2c0
       [<ffffffff81231b7a>] nfs4_opendata_to_nfs4_state+0x31a/0x3d0
       [<ffffffff81231fb2>] nfs4_do_open+0x242/0x460
       [<ffffffff81232a05>] nfs4_proc_create+0x85/0x220
       [<ffffffff8120ec64>] nfs_create+0x74/0x120
       [<ffffffff810e5d63>] vfs_create+0xb3/0x100
       [<ffffffff810e656b>] do_last+0x59b/0x6c0
       [<ffffffff810e88e2>] do_filp_open+0x212/0x690
       [<ffffffff810d8059>] do_sys_open+0x69/0x140
       [<ffffffff810d8170>] sys_open+0x20/0x30
       [<ffffffff81002518>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

-> #1 (&(&clp->cl_lock)->rlock){+.+...}:
       [<ffffffff81065913>] __lock_acquire+0x1293/0x1d30
       [<ffffffff81066442>] lock_acquire+0x92/0x170
       [<ffffffff81925d5b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
       [<ffffffff8124b378>] pnfs_update_layout+0x2f8/0xaf0
       [<ffffffff8124c7e4>] pnfs_file_write+0x64/0xc0
       [<ffffffff810daab7>] vfs_write+0xb7/0x180
       [<ffffffff810dac71>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
       [<ffffffff81002518>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

-> #0 (&(&nfsi->lo_lock)->rlock){+.+...}:
       [<ffffffff81065dd2>] __lock_acquire+0x1752/0x1d30
       [<ffffffff81066442>] lock_acquire+0x92/0x170
       [<ffffffff81925d5b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
       [<ffffffff8124dbee>] T.947+0x4e/0x210
       [<ffffffff8124ddfb>] _pnfs_do_flush+0x4b/0xf0
       [<ffffffff8122364d>] nfs_updatepage+0xfd/0x5a0
       [<ffffffff812126b5>] nfs_write_end+0x265/0x3e0
       [<ffffffff810a3397>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x187/0x2a0
       [<ffffffff810a5890>] __generic_file_aio_write+0x240/0x460
       [<ffffffff810a5b17>] generic_file_aio_write+0x67/0xd0
       [<ffffffff81213661>] nfs_file_write+0xb1/0x1f0
       [<ffffffff810d9fca>] do_sync_write+0xda/0x120
       [<ffffffff8124c802>] pnfs_file_write+0x82/0xc0
       [<ffffffff810daab7>] vfs_write+0xb7/0x180
       [<ffffffff810dac71>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
       [<ffffffff81002518>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

other info that might help us debug this:

2 locks held by cp/2789:
 #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#13){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810a5b04>] g=
eneric_file_aio_write+0x54/0xd0
 #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_lock_key#11){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81223689>] nf=
s_updatepage+0x139/0x5a0

stack backtrace:
Pid: 2789, comm: cp Not tainted 2.6.34-pnfs-00322-g97602fc #141
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff81064033>] print_circular_bug+0xf3/0x100
 [<ffffffff81065dd2>] __lock_acquire+0x1752/0x1d30
 [<ffffffff81066442>] lock_acquire+0x92/0x170
 [<ffffffff8124dbee>] ? T.947+0x4e/0x210
 [<ffffffff81929d59>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x9/0xa0
 [<ffffffff81925d5b>] _raw_spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
 [<ffffffff8124dbee>] ? T.947+0x4e/0x210
 [<ffffffff8124dbee>] T.947+0x4e/0x210
 [<ffffffff8124ddfb>] _pnfs_do_flush+0x4b/0xf0
 [<ffffffff8122364d>] nfs_updatepage+0xfd/0x5a0
 [<ffffffff812126b5>] nfs_write_end+0x265/0x3e0
 [<ffffffff810a3397>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x187/0x2a0
 [<ffffffff810a5890>] __generic_file_aio_write+0x240/0x460
 [<ffffffff81929d59>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x9/0xa0
 [<ffffffff810a5b17>] generic_file_aio_write+0x67/0xd0
 [<ffffffff81213661>] nfs_file_write+0xb1/0x1f0
 [<ffffffff810d9fca>] do_sync_write+0xda/0x120
 [<ffffffff810528a0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40
 [<ffffffff8124c802>] pnfs_file_write+0x82/0xc0
 [<ffffffff810daab7>] vfs_write+0xb7/0x180
 [<ffffffff810dac71>] sys_write+0x51/0x90
 [<ffffffff81002518>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
eth0: no IPv6 routers present