From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Another questionable lock order bug
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:54:09 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101217235408.GF5193@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=0E2eh=wnX+Kr=egLoigkMDq5UuaGyOxnk+T1Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 04:40:23AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> With the iprune_sem and iolock lock order warnings taken care of,
> lockdep soon after chokes on i_lock
What kernel are you running? It does not appear to be vanilla XFS,
as:
> [ 716.364005] inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-R} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
> [ 716.364005] cp/8370 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> [ 716.364005] (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){++++-?}, at:
> [<ffffffffa005537c>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0x150 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] {RECLAIM_FS-ON-R} state was registered at:
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff8108392b>] mark_held_locks+0x6b/0xa0
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff810839f1>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x91/0xd0
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff811104fa>] __kmalloc+0x5a/0x220
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa0078717>] kmem_alloc+0x87/0xd0 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa002b8fb>] xfs_attr_shortform_list+0xfb/0x480 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa0027ab8>] xfs_attr_list_int+0xd8/0xe0 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa0088b5f>] xfs_vn_listxattr+0x7f/0x160 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff811396ef>] vfs_listxattr+0x1f/0x30
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff81139b1f>] listxattr+0x3f/0xf0
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff81139c14>] sys_flistxattr+0x44/0x70
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff810030bb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b[
> 716.364005] irq event stamp: 322521151
> [ 716.364005] hardirqs last enabled at (322521151):
> [<ffffffff81601cbd>] mutex_trylock+0x11d/0x190
> [ 716.364005] hardirqs last disabled at (322521150):
> [<ffffffff81601bde>] mutex_trylock+0x3e/0x190
> [ 716.364005] softirqs last enabled at (322518910):
> [<ffffffff81050d0e>] __do_softirq+0x16e/0x360
> [ 716.364005] softirqs last disabled at (322518881):
> [<ffffffff81003f8c>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x50
> [ 716.364005]
> [ 716.364005] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 716.364005] 3 locks held by cp/8370:
> [ 716.364005] #0: (xfs_iolock_active){++++++}, at:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This patch is not yet mainline. If you really want to do significant
XFS scalability testing for .38, you should probably pull these branches
in for testing:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/dgc/xfsdev.git inode-scale
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/dgc/xfsdev.git xfs-for-2.6.38
> [<ffffffffa0055395>] xfs_ilock+0xa5/0x150 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] #1: (shrinker_rwsem){++++..}, at:
> [<ffffffff810d91c8>] shrink_slab+0x38/0x190
> [ 716.364005] #2: (&pag->pag_ici_reclaim_lock){+.+...}, at:
> [<ffffffffa00875c4>] xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+
> 0xa4/0x360 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005]
> [ 716.364005] stack backtrace:
> [ 716.364005] Pid: 8370, comm: cp Not tainted 2.6.37-rc6+ #116
> [ 716.364005] Call Trace:
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff81082a10>] print_usage_bug+0x170/0x180
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff810836d1>] mark_lock+0x211/0x400
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff810842ce>] __lock_acquire+0x40e/0x1490
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff810853e5>] lock_acquire+0x95/0x1b0
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa005537c>] ? xfs_ilock+0x8c/0x150 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff8127c35c>] ? rcu_read_lock_held+0x2c/0x30
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff81073d5a>] down_write_nested+0x4a/0x70
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa005537c>] ? xfs_ilock+0x8c/0x150 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa005537c>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0x150 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa00872e6>] xfs_reclaim_inode+0x36/0x270 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa008772f>] xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x20f/0x360 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffffa00878f8>] xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0x78/0x80 [xfs]
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff810d92b7>] shrink_slab+0x127/0x190
> [ 716.364005] [<ffffffff810dc189>] zone_reclaim+0x349/0x420
>
> I assume this should be a false positive too, for the same reason,
> and could be handled the same way as iolock.
The ilock is very different to the iolock in terms of usage - the
ilock is required in the writeback path (for block mapping,
allocation and file size updates) while the iolock is not.
Hence this is indicative of a potential deadlock and we shouldn't
be doing memory allocation with the ilock outside a transaction.
Allocations inside transactions are transformed to GFP_NOFS so are
safe against such lock recursion, but outside transactions we need
to use KM_NOFS directly. I'll send out a patch on Monday after I've
looked at the code in more detail....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-17 23:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-17 17:40 Another questionable lock order bug Nick Piggin
2010-12-17 23:54 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-12-18 2:05 ` Nick Piggin
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=20101217235408.GF5193@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--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.