All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
Cc: Marc Dionne <marc.c.dionne@gmail.com>,
	Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	<t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: Lockups with btrfs on 3.16-rc1 - bisected
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:10:33 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53A343B9.3000900@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53A32353.5000104@hp.com>

On 06/19/2014 01:52 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 06/19/2014 12:51 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On 06/18/2014 11:21 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> On 06/18/2014 10:11 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>>>> On 06/18/2014 10:03 PM, Marc Dionne wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Marc
>>>>> Dionne<marc.c.dionne@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Waiman Long<waiman.long@hp.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/18/2014 08:03 PM, Marc Dionne wrote:
>>>>> And for an additional data point, just removing those
>>>>> CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC ifdefs looks like it's sufficient to prevent
>>>>> the symptoms when lockdep is not enabled.
>>>> Ok, somehow we've added a lock inversion here that wasn't here before.
>>>> Thanks for confirming, I'll nail it down.
>>>>
>>>> -chris
>>>>
>>> I am pretty sure that the hangup is caused by the following kind of code
>>> fragment in the locking.c file:
>>>
>>>   if (eb->lock_nested) {
>>>                  read_lock(&eb->lock);
>>>                  if (eb->lock_nested&&  current->pid ==
>>> eb->lock_owner) {
>>>
>>> Is it possible to do the check without taking the read_lock?
>> I think you're right, we haven't added any new recursive takers of the
>> lock.  The path where we are deadlocking has an extent buffer that isn't
>> in the path yet locked.  I think we're taking the read lock while that
>> one is write locked.
>>
>> Reworking the nesting a big here.
>>
>> -chris
> 
> I would like to take back my comments. I took out the read_lock, but the
> process still hang while doing file activities on btrfs filesystem. So
> the problem is trickier than I thought. Below are the stack backtraces
> of some of the relevant processes.
> 

You weren't wrong, but it was also the tree trylock code.  Our trylocks
only back off if the blocking lock is held.  btrfs_next_leaf needs it to
be a true trylock.  The confusing part is this hasn't really changed,
but one of the callers must be a spinner where we used to have a blocker.

-chris

  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-19 20:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-06-18 20:57 Lockups with btrfs on 3.16-rc1 - bisected Marc Dionne
2014-06-18 22:17 ` Waiman Long
2014-06-18 22:27   ` Josef Bacik
2014-06-18 22:47     ` Waiman Long
2014-06-18 23:10       ` Josef Bacik
2014-06-18 23:19         ` Waiman Long
2014-06-18 23:27           ` Chris Mason
2014-06-18 23:30             ` Waiman Long
2014-06-18 23:53               ` Chris Mason
2014-06-19  0:03                 ` Marc Dionne
2014-06-19  0:08                   ` Waiman Long
2014-06-19  0:41                     ` Marc Dionne
2014-06-19  2:03                       ` Marc Dionne
2014-06-19  2:11                         ` Chris Mason
2014-06-19  3:21                           ` Waiman Long
2014-06-19 16:51                             ` Chris Mason
2014-06-19 17:52                               ` Waiman Long
2014-06-19 20:10                                 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2014-06-19 21:50                                   ` Chris Mason
2014-06-19 23:21                                     ` Waiman Long
2014-06-20  3:20                                       ` Tsutomu Itoh
2014-06-21  1:09                                         ` Long, Wai Man
2014-06-19  9:49 ` btrfs-transacti:516 blocked 120 seconds on 3.16-rc1 Konstantinos Skarlatos

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=53A343B9.3000900@fb.com \
    --to=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=jbacik@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.c.dionne@gmail.com \
    --cc=t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=waiman.long@hp.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.