From: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
To: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca
Subject: Re: ext4 lockdep trace (3.1.0rc3)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:54:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110829205424.GA18208@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110829204830.GA18543@redhat.com>
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 04:48:30PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 05:49:30PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > just hit this while building a kernel. Laptop wedged for a few seconds
> > during the final link, and this was in the log when it unwedged.
>
> I still see this in rc4, and can reproduce it reliably every time I build.
> It only started happening in the last week. I don't see any ext4 or vfs commits
> within a few days of that, so I'm not sure why it only just begun
> (I do daily builds, and the 26th was the first time I saw it appear)
>
> Given the lack of obvious commits in that timeframe, I'm not sure a bisect is
> going to be particularly fruitful. It might just be that my IO patterns changed ?
also a second variant with a different trace.
Dave
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
3.1.0-rc3+ #151
-------------------------------------------------------
gnome-settings-/2037 is trying to acquire lock:
(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff811cee83>] ext4_evict_inode+0x76/0x33c
but task is already holding lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff8111ba13>] sys_munmap+0x3b/0x60
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}:
[<ffffffff81091251>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e
[<ffffffff8111499a>] might_fault+0x80/0xa3
[<ffffffff811570ef>] filldir+0x6f/0xc7
[<ffffffff811c5c3f>] call_filldir+0x96/0xc0
[<ffffffff811c5f78>] ext4_readdir+0x1bd/0x548
[<ffffffff81157344>] vfs_readdir+0x7b/0xb4
[<ffffffff81157463>] sys_getdents+0x7e/0xd1
[<ffffffff814f2342>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
-> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}:
[<ffffffff81090a71>] __lock_acquire+0xa2f/0xd0c
[<ffffffff81091251>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e
[<ffffffff814ea40d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x65/0x44a
[<ffffffff814ea8ed>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3b/0x40
[<ffffffff811cee83>] ext4_evict_inode+0x76/0x33c
[<ffffffff8115d2a5>] evict+0x98/0x152
[<ffffffff8115d4f0>] iput+0x191/0x199
[<ffffffff8115a0f2>] dentry_kill+0x123/0x145
[<ffffffff8115a4fc>] dput+0xf2/0x102
[<ffffffff8114948a>] fput+0x1d8/0x1f0
[<ffffffff8111a6bd>] remove_vma+0x51/0x82
[<ffffffff8111b8a0>] do_munmap+0x2f2/0x30b
[<ffffffff8111ba21>] sys_munmap+0x49/0x60
[<ffffffff814f2342>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
other info that might help us debug this:
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key);
lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by gnome-settings-/2037:
#0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff8111ba13>] sys_munmap+0x3b/0x60
stack backtrace:
Pid: 2037, comm: gnome-settings- Not tainted 3.1.0-rc3+ #151
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff810811d1>] ? up+0x39/0x3e
[<ffffffff814e1469>] print_circular_bug+0x1f8/0x209
[<ffffffff81090a71>] __lock_acquire+0xa2f/0xd0c
[<ffffffff810821ef>] ? local_clock+0x35/0x4c
[<ffffffff8108fe4f>] ? mark_lock+0x2d/0x220
[<ffffffff811cee83>] ? ext4_evict_inode+0x76/0x33c
[<ffffffff81091251>] lock_acquire+0xf3/0x13e
[<ffffffff811cee83>] ? ext4_evict_inode+0x76/0x33c
[<ffffffff814ea3e5>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x3d/0x44a
[<ffffffff814ea8ed>] ? mutex_lock_nested+0x3b/0x40
[<ffffffff811cee83>] ? ext4_evict_inode+0x76/0x33c
[<ffffffff814ea40d>] __mutex_lock_common+0x65/0x44a
[<ffffffff811cee83>] ? ext4_evict_inode+0x76/0x33c
[<ffffffff810821ef>] ? local_clock+0x35/0x4c
[<ffffffff8115d297>] ? evict+0x8a/0x152
[<ffffffff8108d9ba>] ? put_lock_stats+0xe/0x29
[<ffffffff8108e03e>] ? lock_release_holdtime.part.10+0x59/0x62
[<ffffffff8115d297>] ? evict+0x8a/0x152
[<ffffffff814ea8ed>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3b/0x40
[<ffffffff811cee83>] ext4_evict_inode+0x76/0x33c
[<ffffffff8115d2a5>] evict+0x98/0x152
[<ffffffff8115d4f0>] iput+0x191/0x199
[<ffffffff8115a0f2>] dentry_kill+0x123/0x145
[<ffffffff8115a4fc>] dput+0xf2/0x102
[<ffffffff8114948a>] fput+0x1d8/0x1f0
[<ffffffff8111a6bd>] remove_vma+0x51/0x82
[<ffffffff8111b8a0>] do_munmap+0x2f2/0x30b
[<ffffffff8111ba21>] sys_munmap+0x49/0x60
[<ffffffff814f2342>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-29 20:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-26 21:49 ext4 lockdep trace (3.1.0rc3) Dave Jones
2011-08-29 20:47 ` Christian Kujau
2011-08-29 20:48 ` Dave Jones
2011-08-29 20:54 ` Dave Jones [this message]
2011-08-30 10:23 ` Tao Ma
2011-08-30 12:30 ` Josh Boyer
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=20110829205424.GA18208@redhat.com \
--to=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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.