public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* XFS Deadlock on Linux 6.12.82
@ 2026-04-22 15:25 Ammar Faizi
  2026-04-22 20:52 ` Dave Chinner
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ammar Faizi @ 2026-04-22 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linux XFS Mailing List, Linux FSdevel Mailing List,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List
  Cc: Ammar Faizi, Yichun Zhang, Junlong Li, Alviro Iskandar Setiawan,
	gwml

Hi,

While running Linux 6.12.82 with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING enabled, I
encountered the following lockdep splat. Based on the call trace, the
potential deadlock appears to be related to the XFS subsystem.
```
[  795.914491] ======================================================
[  795.918006] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[  795.921528] 6.12.82+ #4 Tainted: G            E     
[  795.924362] ------------------------------------------------------
[  795.927870] kswapd0/1023 is trying to acquire lock:
[  795.930669] ff11000211da9798 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}, at: xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x344/0x600 [xfs]
[  795.934476] 
               but task is already holding lock:
[  795.936480] ffffffffb7cb9a40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0xa91/0x14b0
[  795.939189] 
               which lock already depends on the new lock.

[  795.941972] 
               the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[  795.944572] 
               -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
[  795.946509]        __lock_acquire+0xbcd/0x1a20
[  795.948046]        lock_acquire.part.0+0xf7/0x320
[  795.949659]        fs_reclaim_acquire+0xc9/0x110
[  795.951251]        __kmalloc_noprof+0xcd/0x570
[  795.952779]        xfs_attr_shortform_list+0x52f/0x1420 [xfs]
[  795.954877]        xfs_attr_list+0x1e2/0x290 [xfs]
[  795.956635]        xfs_vn_listxattr+0xf8/0x190 [xfs]
[  795.958467]        listxattr+0x7b/0xf0
[  795.959761]        __x64_sys_flistxattr+0x135/0x1c0
[  795.961451]        do_syscall_64+0x90/0x170
[  795.962893]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
[  795.964806] 
               -> #0 (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++}-{3:3}:
[  795.967128]        check_prev_add+0x1b5/0x23e0
[  795.968663]        validate_chain+0xb1a/0xf60
[  795.970170]        __lock_acquire+0xbcd/0x1a20
[  795.971695]        lock_acquire.part.0+0xf7/0x320
[  795.973315]        down_read_nested+0x92/0x470
[  795.974841]        xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x344/0x600 [xfs]
[  795.976878]        xfs_inode_mark_reclaimable+0x1ae/0x270 [xfs]
[  795.979035]        destroy_inode+0xb9/0x1a0
[  795.980495]        evict+0x53f/0x840
[  795.981742]        prune_icache_sb+0x19d/0x2d0
[  795.983284]        super_cache_scan+0x30d/0x4f0
[  795.984840]        do_shrink_slab+0x319/0xc90
[  795.986343]        shrink_slab_memcg+0x450/0x960
[  795.987932]        shrink_slab+0x40b/0x500
[  795.989342]        shrink_one+0x403/0x830
[  795.990722]        shrink_many+0x345/0xd30
[  795.992130]        shrink_node+0xe0c/0x1440
[  795.993570]        balance_pgdat+0xa10/0x14b0
[  795.995082]        kswapd+0x392/0x520
[  795.996356]        kthread+0x293/0x350
[  795.997655]        ret_from_fork+0x31/0x70
[  795.999073]        ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[  796.000600] 
               other info that might help us debug this:

[  796.003350]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[  796.005392]        CPU0                    CPU1
[  796.006963]        ----                    ----
[  796.008535]   lock(fs_reclaim);
[  796.009629]                                lock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
[  796.011953]                                lock(fs_reclaim);
[  796.013901]   rlock(&xfs_nondir_ilock_class);
[  796.015425] 
                *** DEADLOCK ***

[  796.017452] 2 locks held by kswapd0/1023:
[  796.018833]  #0: ffffffffb7cb9a40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0xa91/0x14b0
[  796.021650]  #1: ff1100209f65c0e0 (&type->s_umount_key#56){++++}-{3:3}, at: super_cache_scan+0x7d/0x4f0
[  796.024855] 
               stack backtrace:
[  796.026377] CPU: 21 UID: 0 PID: 1023 Comm: kswapd0 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G            E      6.12.82+ #4
[  796.026381] Tainted: [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE
[  796.026382] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.17.0-4.fc41 04/01/2014
[  796.026384] Call Trace:
[  796.026388]  <TASK>
[  796.026396]  dump_stack_lvl+0x5d/0x80
[  796.026400]  print_circular_bug.cold+0x38/0x48
[  796.026404]  check_noncircular+0x306/0x3f0
[  796.026407]  ? __pfx_check_noncircular+0x10/0x10
[  796.026409]  ? unwind_next_frame+0x1180/0x19e0
[  796.026411]  ? ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[  796.026415]  check_prev_add+0x1b5/0x23e0
[  796.026418]  validate_chain+0xb1a/0xf60
[  796.026420]  ? __pfx_validate_chain+0x10/0x10
[  796.026423]  ? validate_chain+0x14e/0xf60
[  796.026425]  __lock_acquire+0xbcd/0x1a20
[  796.026428]  lock_acquire.part.0+0xf7/0x320
[  796.026432]  ? xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x344/0x600 [xfs]
[  796.026556]  ? __pfx_lock_acquire.part.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.026558]  ? trace_lock_acquire+0x12f/0x1a0
[  796.026560]  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
[  796.026561]  ? xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x344/0x600 [xfs]
[  796.026652]  ? lock_acquire+0x31/0xc0
[  796.026654]  ? xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x344/0x600 [xfs]
[  796.026741]  down_read_nested+0x92/0x470
[  796.026745]  ? xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x344/0x600 [xfs]
[  796.026831]  ? __pfx_down_read_nested+0x10/0x10
[  796.026834]  ? trace_xfs_ilock+0xff/0x160 [xfs]
[  796.026943]  xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x344/0x600 [xfs]
[  796.027045]  ? __pfx_xfs_can_free_eofblocks+0x10/0x10 [xfs]
[  796.027132]  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12e/0x270
[  796.027135]  ? xfs_inode_mark_reclaimable+0x1a2/0x270 [xfs]
[  796.027236]  xfs_inode_mark_reclaimable+0x1ae/0x270 [xfs]
[  796.027328]  destroy_inode+0xb9/0x1a0
[  796.027331]  evict+0x53f/0x840
[  796.027333]  ? __pfx_evict+0x10/0x10
[  796.027335]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x14a/0x1f0
[  796.027337]  ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x23/0x40
[  796.027339]  ? list_lru_walk_one+0xaa/0xf0
[  796.027341]  prune_icache_sb+0x19d/0x2d0
[  796.027344]  ? prune_dcache_sb+0xe3/0x160
[  796.027346]  ? __pfx_prune_icache_sb+0x10/0x10
[  796.027348]  ? __pfx_prune_dcache_sb+0x10/0x10
[  796.027350]  ? lock_release+0xda/0x140
[  796.027353]  super_cache_scan+0x30d/0x4f0
[  796.027356]  do_shrink_slab+0x319/0xc90
[  796.027359]  shrink_slab_memcg+0x450/0x960
[  796.027360]  ? shrink_slab_memcg+0x16b/0x960
[  796.027362]  ? __pfx_shrink_slab_memcg+0x10/0x10
[  796.027365]  ? try_to_shrink_lruvec+0x48e/0x8a0
[  796.027367]  shrink_slab+0x40b/0x500
[  796.027369]  ? __pfx_shrink_slab+0x10/0x10
[  796.027371]  ? shrink_many+0x320/0xd30
[  796.027373]  ? __pfx_try_to_shrink_lruvec+0x10/0x10
[  796.027375]  ? __pfx___lock_release.isra.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.027376]  ? __pfx___lock_release.isra.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.027378]  ? __pfx_lock_acquire.part.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.027380]  shrink_one+0x403/0x830
[  796.027383]  shrink_many+0x345/0xd30
[  796.027385]  ? shrink_many+0x320/0xd30
[  796.027387]  ? shrink_many+0xa3/0xd30
[  796.027390]  shrink_node+0xe0c/0x1440
[  796.027392]  ? percpu_ref_put_many.constprop.0+0x7a/0x1d0
[  796.027395]  ? __pfx___lock_release.isra.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.027396]  ? __pfx_lock_acquire.part.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.027399]  ? __pfx_shrink_node+0x10/0x10
[  796.027401]  ? percpu_ref_put_many.constprop.0+0x7f/0x1d0
[  796.027403]  ? mem_cgroup_iter+0x598/0x880
[  796.027405]  balance_pgdat+0xa10/0x14b0
[  796.027409]  ? __pfx_balance_pgdat+0x10/0x10
[  796.027410]  ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x110
[  796.027412]  ? __pfx___schedule+0x10/0x10
[  796.027415]  ? __pfx___lock_release.isra.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.027416]  ? __pfx_lock_acquire.part.0+0x10/0x10
[  796.027418]  ? trace_lock_acquire+0x12f/0x1a0
[  796.027420]  ? set_pgdat_percpu_threshold+0x1c9/0x340
[  796.027423]  ? __pfx_kswapd_try_to_sleep+0x10/0x10
[  796.027425]  ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x12e/0x270
[  796.027427]  ? __pfx_kswapd+0x10/0x10
[  796.027430]  kswapd+0x392/0x520
[  796.027432]  ? __pfx_kswapd+0x10/0x10
[  796.027434]  ? __kthread_parkme+0x86/0x140
[  796.027437]  ? __pfx_kswapd+0x10/0x10
[  796.027439]  kthread+0x293/0x350
[  796.027441]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[  796.027443]  ret_from_fork+0x31/0x70
[  796.027445]  ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
[  796.027446]  ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
[  796.027450]  </TASK>
```

Here is my partition layout:
```
[root@localhost ~]# lsblk
NAME                  MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINTS
sda                     8:0    0   128G  0 disk 
├─sda1                  8:1    0     2M  0 part 
├─sda2                  8:2    0     2G  0 part /boot
└─sda3                  8:3    0   126G  0 part 
  ├─rl-pool00_tmeta   253:0    0   128M  0 lvm  
  │ └─rl-pool00-tpool 253:2    0 125.7G  0 lvm  
  │   ├─rl-root       253:3    0 113.3G  0 lvm  /
  │   ├─rl-swap       253:4    0     4G  0 lvm  [SWAP]
  │   └─rl-pool00     253:5    0 125.7G  1 lvm  
  └─rl-pool00_tdata   253:1    0 125.7G  0 lvm  
    └─rl-pool00-tpool 253:2    0 125.7G  0 lvm  
      ├─rl-root       253:3    0 113.3G  0 lvm  /
      ├─rl-swap       253:4    0     4G  0 lvm  [SWAP]
      └─rl-pool00     253:5    0 125.7G  1 lvm  
sr0                    11:0    1   3.1G  0 rom  
[root@localhost ~]# mount | grep xfs
/dev/mapper/rl-root on / type xfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,attr2,inode64,logbufs=8,logbsize=64k,sunit=128,swidth=128,noquota)
selinuxfs on /sys/fs/selinux type selinuxfs (rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime)
/dev/sda2 on /boot type xfs (rw,relatime,seclabel,attr2,inode64,logbufs=8,logbsize=32k,noquota)
[root@localhost ~]# 
```

Let me know if someone needs more information to debug this issue.

Thank you!

-- 
Ammar Faizi

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: XFS Deadlock on Linux 6.12.82
  2026-04-22 15:25 XFS Deadlock on Linux 6.12.82 Ammar Faizi
@ 2026-04-22 20:52 ` Dave Chinner
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2026-04-22 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ammar Faizi
  Cc: Linux XFS Mailing List, Linux FSdevel Mailing List,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List, Yichun Zhang, Junlong Li,
	Alviro Iskandar Setiawan, gwml

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 10:25:05PM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> While running Linux 6.12.82 with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING enabled, I
> encountered the following lockdep splat. Based on the call trace, the
> potential deadlock appears to be related to the XFS subsystem.

Well known false positive.

Lockdep knows nothing about inode reference counts and how they
interact with memory reclaim. i.e. A referenced locked inode doing
memory allocation cannot be found by memory reclaim processing
unreferenced inodes, so reclaim cannot deadlock on inode locks held
by referenced inodes when doing memory allocation.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
dgc@kernel.org

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-22 20:52 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-04-22 15:25 XFS Deadlock on Linux 6.12.82 Ammar Faizi
2026-04-22 20:52 ` Dave Chinner

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox