* Possible circular locking: ->mmap_sem vs jbd_handle
@ 2007-10-16 8:54 Alexey Dobriyan
2007-10-16 9:01 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Dobriyan @ 2007-10-16 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: a.p.zijlstra, mingo, akpm
Got this during LTP's diotest1. Reproducable.
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.23-65a6ec0d72a07f16719e9b7a96e1c4bae044b591 #2
-------------------------------------------------------
diotest1/13563 is trying to acquire lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
but task is already holding lock:
(jbd_handle){--..}, at: [<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (jbd_handle){--..}:
[<c1033b14>] __lock_acquire+0x9b0/0xb7b
[<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
[<c10581a2>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x67/0x9b
[<c10340a9>] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x77
[<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
[<c1099b28>] journal_start+0x116/0x120
[<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
[<c1090d6a>] ext3_dirty_inode+0x24/0x6d
[<c10581a2>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x67/0x9b
[<c10729b3>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x24/0x145
[<c101d2c2>] current_fs_time+0x13/0x15
[<c103e0bf>] generic_file_mmap+0x2a/0x3e
[<c104da6e>] mmap_region+0x200/0x3ee
[<c104df32>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x209/0x252
[<c1006a0f>] sys_mmap2+0x9d/0xb7
[<c10027de>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
[<c1031966>] print_circular_bug_entry+0x40/0x46
[<c1033a04>] __lock_acquire+0x8a0/0xb7b
[<c1033137>] check_noncircular+0x57/0x84
[<c1056ecc>] check_bytes_and_report+0x26/0xb2
[<c1032e6f>] debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x134/0x13e
[<c10340a9>] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x77
[<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
[<c102c2d8>] down_read+0x38/0x49
[<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
[<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
[<c10c0c1c>] __spin_lock_init+0x29/0x49
[<c107b2a3>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x495/0xad4
[<c1032b41>] mark_held_locks+0x39/0x53
[<c1196f3d>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x105/0x127
[<c1032d18>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x11a/0x13d
[<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
[<c1099b28>] journal_start+0x116/0x120
[<c1090b81>] ext3_direct_IO+0xfa/0x18a
[<c108f296>] ext3_get_block+0x0/0xbe
[<c103f0fd>] generic_file_direct_IO+0xe5/0x116
[<c103f18a>] generic_file_direct_write+0x5c/0x138
[<c101d2c2>] current_fs_time+0x13/0x15
[<c103fbbe>] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x378/0x4dc
[<c1032d18>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x11a/0x13d
[<c103fd67>] generic_file_aio_write+0x45/0xb8
[<c103fd7c>] generic_file_aio_write+0x5a/0xb8
[<c108cd94>] ext3_file_write+0x24/0x8f
[<c105af91>] do_sync_write+0xc7/0x10a
[<c1029231>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x35
[<c102c39b>] up_read+0x14/0x29
[<c104d7c2>] do_brk+0x1ad/0x259
[<c105aeca>] do_sync_write+0x0/0x10a
[<c105b660>] vfs_write+0x74/0x95
[<c105baf1>] sys_write+0x41/0x67
[<c1002756>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by diotest1/13563:
#0: (&type->i_mutex_key#3){--..}, at: [<c103fd67>] generic_file_aio_write+0x45/0xb8
#1: (jbd_handle){--..}, at: [<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
stack backtrace:
[<c1032269>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x5f/0x67
[<c1033a04>] __lock_acquire+0x8a0/0xb7b
[<c1033137>] check_noncircular+0x57/0x84
[<c1056ecc>] check_bytes_and_report+0x26/0xb2
[<c1032e6f>] debug_check_no_locks_freed+0x134/0x13e
[<c10340a9>] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x77
[<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
[<c102c2d8>] down_read+0x38/0x49
[<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
[<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
[<c10c0c1c>] __spin_lock_init+0x29/0x49
[<c107b2a3>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x495/0xad4
[<c1032b41>] mark_held_locks+0x39/0x53
[<c1196f3d>] __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x105/0x127
[<c1032d18>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x11a/0x13d
[<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
[<c1099b28>] journal_start+0x116/0x120
[<c1090b81>] ext3_direct_IO+0xfa/0x18a
[<c108f296>] ext3_get_block+0x0/0xbe
[<c103f0fd>] generic_file_direct_IO+0xe5/0x116
[<c103f18a>] generic_file_direct_write+0x5c/0x138
[<c101d2c2>] current_fs_time+0x13/0x15
[<c103fbbe>] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x378/0x4dc
[<c1032d18>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x11a/0x13d
[<c103fd67>] generic_file_aio_write+0x45/0xb8
[<c103fd7c>] generic_file_aio_write+0x5a/0xb8
[<c108cd94>] ext3_file_write+0x24/0x8f
[<c105af91>] do_sync_write+0xc7/0x10a
[<c1029231>] autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x35
[<c102c39b>] up_read+0x14/0x29
[<c104d7c2>] do_brk+0x1ad/0x259
[<c105aeca>] do_sync_write+0x0/0x10a
[<c105b660>] vfs_write+0x74/0x95
[<c105baf1>] sys_write+0x41/0x67
[<c1002756>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
=======================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Possible circular locking: ->mmap_sem vs jbd_handle
2007-10-16 8:54 Possible circular locking: ->mmap_sem vs jbd_handle Alexey Dobriyan
@ 2007-10-16 9:01 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-16 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2007-10-16 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexey Dobriyan; +Cc: linux-kernel, a.p.zijlstra, mingo
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:54:29 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru> wrote:
> Got this during LTP's diotest1. Reproducable.
>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.23-65a6ec0d72a07f16719e9b7a96e1c4bae044b591 #2
> -------------------------------------------------------
> diotest1/13563 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (jbd_handle){--..}, at: [<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
Someone taught lockdep about journal_start? That's gonna hurt.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Possible circular locking: ->mmap_sem vs jbd_handle
2007-10-16 9:01 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2007-10-16 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-16 9:08 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2007-10-16 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, linux-kernel, mingo
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]
On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 02:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:54:29 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru> wrote:
>
> > Got this during LTP's diotest1. Reproducable.
> >
> > =======================================================
> > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > 2.6.23-65a6ec0d72a07f16719e9b7a96e1c4bae044b591 #2
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > diotest1/13563 is trying to acquire lock:
> > (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > (jbd_handle){--..}, at: [<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
> >
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> Someone taught lockdep about journal_start? That's gonna hurt.
It was you who suggested doing so,...
Are these valid reports, or is the annotation wrong?
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Possible circular locking: ->mmap_sem vs jbd_handle
2007-10-16 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
@ 2007-10-16 9:08 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2007-10-16 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: Alexey Dobriyan, linux-kernel, mingo
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:05:12 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 02:01 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:54:29 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru> wrote:
> >
> > > Got this during LTP's diotest1. Reproducable.
> > >
> > > =======================================================
> > > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > > 2.6.23-65a6ec0d72a07f16719e9b7a96e1c4bae044b591 #2
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > diotest1/13563 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c107a7b7>] dio_get_page+0x4b/0x16b
> > >
> > > but task is already holding lock:
> > > (jbd_handle){--..}, at: [<c1099b05>] journal_start+0xf3/0x120
> > >
> > > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > Someone taught lockdep about journal_start? That's gonna hurt.
>
> It was you who suggested doing so,...
yeah, but I didn't think anyone would go and do it!
> Are these valid reports, or is the annotation wrong?
It's valid. There will be others..
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-10-16 9:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-10-16 8:54 Possible circular locking: ->mmap_sem vs jbd_handle Alexey Dobriyan
2007-10-16 9:01 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-16 9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-16 9:08 ` Andrew Morton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox