From: Mark Jackson <mpfj-list@mimc.co.uk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: JFFS2 deadlock
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:19:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <512E23F0.2060408@mimc.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130227101704.90466ae6df78ab9b3aa4ba22@canb.auug.org.au>
On 26/02/13 23:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:54:56 +0000 Mark Jackson <mpfj-list@mimc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Just tested the current next-20130226 on a custom AM335X board, and I received the JFFS2 deadlock shown below.
>
> Is this new today? is it reproducible? Does if ail for Linus' tree?
Almost identical on Linus' tree:-
[ 3.685186]
[ 3.686803] ======================================================
[ 3.693333] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 3.699962] 3.8.0-09426-g986876f-dirty #133 Not tainted
[ 3.705482] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 3.712105] rcS/682 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 3.716801] (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<c00f1258>] might_fault+0x3c/0x90
[ 3.724307]
[ 3.724307] but task is already holding lock:
[ 3.730470] (&f->sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c023cb30>] jffs2_readdir+0x44/0x1a8
[ 3.737686]
[ 3.737686] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 3.737686]
[ 3.746331]
[ 3.746331] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 3.754239]
-> #1 (&f->sem){+.+.+.}:
[ 3.758229] [<c0093614>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104
[ 3.763775] [<c04b3b4c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x334
[ 3.769769] [<c023d358>] jffs2_readpage+0x20/0x44
[ 3.775392] [<c00da510>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x2a0/0x2cc
[ 3.782217] [<c00da7dc>] ra_submit+0x28/0x30
[ 3.787380] [<c00d2010>] filemap_fault+0x304/0x458
[ 3.793094] [<c00f13bc>] __do_fault+0x6c/0x490
[ 3.798439] [<c00f43a4>] handle_pte_fault+0xb0/0x6f0
[ 3.804337] [<c00f4a84>] handle_mm_fault+0xa0/0xd4
[ 3.810050] [<c04b80e8>] do_page_fault+0x2a0/0x3d4
[ 3.815773] [<c000845c>] do_DataAbort+0x30/0x9c
[ 3.821212] [<c04b65e4>] __dabt_svc+0x44/0x80
[ 3.826467] [<c0288d10>] __clear_user_std+0x1c/0x64
[ 3.832285]
-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}:
[ 3.836824] [<c0093010>] __lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0
[ 3.842815] [<c0093614>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104
[ 3.848345] [<c00f127c>] might_fault+0x60/0x90
[ 3.853690] [<c011c504>] filldir+0x5c/0x158
[ 3.858762] [<c023cbc8>] jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8
[ 3.864384] [<c011c794>] vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4
[ 3.869729] [<c011c894>] sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0
[ 3.875166] [<c0013800>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c
[ 3.880890]
[ 3.880890] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 3.880890]
[ 3.889350] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 3.889350]
[ 3.895604] CPU0 CPU1
[ 3.900388] ---- ----
[ 3.905171] lock(&f->sem);
[ 3.908227] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
[ 3.914494] lock(&f->sem);
[ 3.920210] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
[ 3.923816]
[ 3.923816] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 3.923816]
[ 3.930077] 2 locks held by rcS/682:
[ 3.933851] #0: (&type->i_mutex_dir_key){+.+.+.}, at: [<c011c758>] vfs_readdir+0x5c/0xb4
[ 3.942625] #1: (&f->sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c023cb30>] jffs2_readdir+0x44/0x1a8
[ 3.950298]
[ 3.950298] stack backtrace:
[ 3.954930] [<c001b11c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c008fac0>] (print_circular_bug+0x1d0/0x2dc)
[ 3.964870] [<c008fac0>] (print_circular_bug+0x1d0/0x2dc) from [<c0093010>] (__lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0)
[ 3.975081] [<c0093010>] (__lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0) from [<c0093614>] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104)
[ 3.984650] [<c0093614>] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104) from [<c00f127c>] (might_fault+0x60/0x90)
[ 3.993573] [<c00f127c>] (might_fault+0x60/0x90) from [<c011c504>] (filldir+0x5c/0x158)
[ 4.002039] [<c011c504>] (filldir+0x5c/0x158) from [<c023cbc8>] (jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8)
[ 4.010781] [<c023cbc8>] (jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8) from [<c011c794>] (vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4)
[ 4.019797] [<c011c794>] (vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4) from [<c011c894>] (sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0)
[ 4.028629] [<c011c894>] (sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0) from [<c0013800>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Jackson <mpfj-list@mimc.co.uk>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: linux-next: JFFS2 deadlock
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:19:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <512E23F0.2060408@mimc.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130227101704.90466ae6df78ab9b3aa4ba22@canb.auug.org.au>
On 26/02/13 23:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:54:56 +0000 Mark Jackson <mpfj-list@mimc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Just tested the current next-20130226 on a custom AM335X board, and I received the JFFS2 deadlock shown below.
>
> Is this new today? is it reproducible? Does if ail for Linus' tree?
Almost identical on Linus' tree:-
[ 3.685186]
[ 3.686803] ======================================================
[ 3.693333] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 3.699962] 3.8.0-09426-g986876f-dirty #133 Not tainted
[ 3.705482] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 3.712105] rcS/682 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 3.716801] (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<c00f1258>] might_fault+0x3c/0x90
[ 3.724307]
[ 3.724307] but task is already holding lock:
[ 3.730470] (&f->sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c023cb30>] jffs2_readdir+0x44/0x1a8
[ 3.737686]
[ 3.737686] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 3.737686]
[ 3.746331]
[ 3.746331] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 3.754239]
-> #1 (&f->sem){+.+.+.}:
[ 3.758229] [<c0093614>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104
[ 3.763775] [<c04b3b4c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x334
[ 3.769769] [<c023d358>] jffs2_readpage+0x20/0x44
[ 3.775392] [<c00da510>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x2a0/0x2cc
[ 3.782217] [<c00da7dc>] ra_submit+0x28/0x30
[ 3.787380] [<c00d2010>] filemap_fault+0x304/0x458
[ 3.793094] [<c00f13bc>] __do_fault+0x6c/0x490
[ 3.798439] [<c00f43a4>] handle_pte_fault+0xb0/0x6f0
[ 3.804337] [<c00f4a84>] handle_mm_fault+0xa0/0xd4
[ 3.810050] [<c04b80e8>] do_page_fault+0x2a0/0x3d4
[ 3.815773] [<c000845c>] do_DataAbort+0x30/0x9c
[ 3.821212] [<c04b65e4>] __dabt_svc+0x44/0x80
[ 3.826467] [<c0288d10>] __clear_user_std+0x1c/0x64
[ 3.832285]
-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}:
[ 3.836824] [<c0093010>] __lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0
[ 3.842815] [<c0093614>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104
[ 3.848345] [<c00f127c>] might_fault+0x60/0x90
[ 3.853690] [<c011c504>] filldir+0x5c/0x158
[ 3.858762] [<c023cbc8>] jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8
[ 3.864384] [<c011c794>] vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4
[ 3.869729] [<c011c894>] sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0
[ 3.875166] [<c0013800>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c
[ 3.880890]
[ 3.880890] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 3.880890]
[ 3.889350] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 3.889350]
[ 3.895604] CPU0 CPU1
[ 3.900388] ---- ----
[ 3.905171] lock(&f->sem);
[ 3.908227] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
[ 3.914494] lock(&f->sem);
[ 3.920210] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
[ 3.923816]
[ 3.923816] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 3.923816]
[ 3.930077] 2 locks held by rcS/682:
[ 3.933851] #0: (&type->i_mutex_dir_key){+.+.+.}, at: [<c011c758>] vfs_readdir+0x5c/0xb4
[ 3.942625] #1: (&f->sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c023cb30>] jffs2_readdir+0x44/0x1a8
[ 3.950298]
[ 3.950298] stack backtrace:
[ 3.954930] [<c001b11c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c008fac0>] (print_circular_bug+0x1d0/0x2dc)
[ 3.964870] [<c008fac0>] (print_circular_bug+0x1d0/0x2dc) from [<c0093010>] (__lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0)
[ 3.975081] [<c0093010>] (__lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0) from [<c0093614>] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104)
[ 3.984650] [<c0093614>] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104) from [<c00f127c>] (might_fault+0x60/0x90)
[ 3.993573] [<c00f127c>] (might_fault+0x60/0x90) from [<c011c504>] (filldir+0x5c/0x158)
[ 4.002039] [<c011c504>] (filldir+0x5c/0x158) from [<c023cbc8>] (jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8)
[ 4.010781] [<c023cbc8>] (jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8) from [<c011c794>] (vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4)
[ 4.019797] [<c011c794>] (vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4) from [<c011c894>] (sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0)
[ 4.028629] [<c011c894>] (sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0) from [<c0013800>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-27 15:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-26 11:54 linux-next: JFFS2 deadlock Mark Jackson
2013-02-26 11:54 ` Mark Jackson
2013-02-26 23:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-02-26 23:17 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-02-27 0:27 ` Al Viro
2013-02-27 0:27 ` Al Viro
2013-02-27 15:19 ` Mark Jackson [this message]
2013-02-27 15:19 ` Mark Jackson
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=512E23F0.2060408@mimc.co.uk \
--to=mpfj-list@mimc.co.uk \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.