From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
"linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: 3.4.4-rt13: btrfs + xfstests 006 = BOOM.. and a bonus rt_mutex deadlock report for absolutely free!
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 06:47:41 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120713104741.GF30128@shiny> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1207131223240.32033@ionos>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 04:26:26AM -0600, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 11:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 15:31 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > Bingo, that makes it more likely that this is caused by copying w/o
> > > > > initializing the lock and then freeing the original structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > A quick check for memcpy finds that __btrfs_close_devices() does a
> > > > > memcpy of btrfs_device structs w/o initializing the lock in the new
> > > > > copy, but I have no idea whether that's the place we are looking for.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a bunch Thomas. I doubt I would have ever figured out that lala
> > > > land resulted from _copying_ a lock. That's one I won't be forgetting
> > > > any time soon. Box not only survived a few thousand xfstests 006 runs,
> > > > dbench seemed disinterested in deadlocking virgin 3.0-rt.
> > >
> > > Cute. It think that the lock copying caused the deadlock problem as
> > > the list pointed to the wrong place, so we might have ended up with
> > > following down the wrong chain when walking the list as long as the
> > > original struct was not freed. That beast is freed under RCU so there
> > > could be a rcu read side critical section fiddling with the old lock
> > > and cause utter confusion.
> >
> > Virgin 3.0-rt appears to really be solid. But then it doesn't have
> > pesky rwlocks.
>
> Ah. So 3.0 is not having those rwlock thingies. Bummer.
>
> > > /me goes and writes a nastigram^W proper changelog
> > >
> > > > btrfs still locks up in my enterprise kernel, so I suppose I had better
> > > > plug your fix into 3.4-rt and see what happens, and go beat hell out of
> > > > virgin 3.0-rt again to be sure box really really survives dbench.
> > >
> > > A test against 3.4-rt sans enterprise mess might be nice as well.
> >
> > Enterprise is 3.0-stable with um 555 btrfs patches (oh dear).
> >
> > Virgin 3.4-rt and 3.2-rt deadlock gripe. Enterprise doesn't gripe, but
> > deadlocks, so I have another adventure in my future even if I figure out
> > wth to do about rwlocks.
>
> Hrmpf. /me goes to stare into fs/btrfs/ some more.
Please post the deadlocks here, I'll help ;)
-chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-13 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-12 5:47 3.4.4-rt13: btrfs + xfstests 006 = BOOM.. and a bonus rt_mutex deadlock report for absolutely free! Mike Galbraith
2012-07-12 8:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-12 9:53 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-12 11:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-12 11:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-12 13:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-12 13:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-12 13:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-12 13:48 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-12 13:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-13 6:31 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-13 9:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-13 10:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-13 10:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-13 10:47 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2012-07-13 12:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-12 11:07 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-12 17:09 ` Chris Mason
2012-07-13 10:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-13 12:50 ` Chris Mason
2012-07-13 14:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-07-14 10:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-15 17:56 ` Chris Mason
2012-07-16 2:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-16 16:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-07-16 16:26 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-16 16:35 ` Chris Mason
2012-07-16 16:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-16 17:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-07-17 4:18 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-17 4:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-07-17 4:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2012-07-17 4:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-17 4:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-17 12:54 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-16 10:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-16 15:43 ` Chris Mason
2012-07-16 16:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2012-07-14 13:38 ` Mike Galbraith
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=20120713104741.GF30128@shiny \
--to=chris.mason@fusionio.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).