* [LOCKING] 2.6.33-rc8 btrfs vs java
@ 2010-02-15 0:14 Ed Tomlinson
2010-02-15 15:56 ` Chris Mason
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ed Tomlinson @ 2010-02-15 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Mason; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-btrfs
Hi,
Found this in my log for 2.6.33-rc8. Figgured it might be interesting since .33 is close.
Thanks,
Ed
[102331.564869]
[102331.564871] =======================================================
[102331.565770] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[102331.565770] 2.6.32.8-crc #104
[102331.580954] -------------------------------------------------------
[102331.580954] java/8004 is trying to acquire lock:
[102331.580954] (btrfs-extent-01){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa04e9110>] btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x70/0xa0 [btrfs]
[102331.580954]
[102331.580954] but task is already holding lock:
[102331.580954] (&eb->lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa04e9160>] btrfs_clear_lock_blocking+0x20/0x30 [btrfs]
[102331.580954]
[102331.580954] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[102331.580954]
[102331.580954]
[102331.580954] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[102331.580954]
[102331.580954] -> #1 (&eb->lock){+.+...}:
[102331.580954] [<ffffffff81091b95>] __lock_acquire+0xfc5/0x1550
[102331.580954] [<ffffffff810921bc>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x140
[102331.580954] [<ffffffff814ac11b>] _spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
[102331.580954] [<ffffffffa04e9110>] btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x70/0xa0 [btrfs]
[102331.580954] [<ffffffffa04a016d>] btrfs_search_slot+0x81d/0x860 [btrfs]
[102331.670534] [<ffffffffa04b267f>] btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2f/0xb0 [btrfs]
[102331.670534] [<ffffffffa04bcd3e>] btrfs_update_inode+0x6e/0x100 [btrfs]
[102331.670534] [<ffffffffa04bd469>] btrfs_dirty_inode+0x49/0x70 [btrfs]
[102331.670534] [<ffffffff8115beeb>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x3b/0x1a0
[102331.670534] [<ffffffff8114e1fb>] file_update_time+0xfb/0x180
[102331.706273] [<ffffffffa04c7114>] btrfs_file_write+0x384/0x920 [btrfs]
[102331.706273] [<ffffffff8113333c>] vfs_write+0x11c/0x1e0
[102331.706273] [<ffffffff8113464a>] sys_pwrite64+0xaa/0xb0
[102331.706273] [<ffffffff8100ba1b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[102331.706273]
[102331.706273] -> #0 (btrfs-extent-01){+.+...}:
[102331.737064] [<ffffffff81091fe8>] __lock_acquire+0x1418/0x1550
[102331.737064] [<ffffffff810921bc>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x140
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff814ac11b>] _spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04e9110>] btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x70/0xa0 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04a016d>] btrfs_search_slot+0x81d/0x860 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04b0fd3>] btrfs_lookup_csum+0x93/0x160 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04b1a7d>] btrfs_lookup_bio_sums+0x19d/0x380 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04bc125>] btrfs_submit_bio_hook+0x95/0x120 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04d661a>] submit_one_bio+0x5a/0x90 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04d9f76>] extent_read_full_page+0x46/0x50 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04bcc53>] btrfs_readpage+0x23/0x30 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04c74c6>] btrfs_file_write+0x736/0x920 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff8113333c>] vfs_write+0x11c/0x1e0
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff8113464a>] sys_pwrite64+0xaa/0xb0
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff8100ba1b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[102331.753738]
[102331.753738] other info that might help us debug this:
[102331.753738]
[102331.753738] 2 locks held by java/8004:
[102331.753738] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#13){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa04c6ec6>] btrfs_file_write+0x136/0x920 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] #1: (&eb->lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa04e9160>] btrfs_clear_lock_blocking+0x20/0x30 [btrfs]
[102331.753738]
[102331.753738] stack backtrace:
[102331.753738] Pid: 8004, comm: java Not tainted 2.6.32.8-crc #104
[102331.753738] Call Trace:
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff8108f679>] print_circular_bug+0xe9/0xf0
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff81091fe8>] __lock_acquire+0x1418/0x1550
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff814afa4e>] ? sub_preempt_count+0xe/0x60
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff810921bc>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x140
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04e9110>] ? btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x70/0xa0 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff814ac11b>] _spin_lock+0x3b/0x50
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04e9110>] ? btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x70/0xa0 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04e9110>] btrfs_try_spin_lock+0x70/0xa0 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04a016d>] btrfs_search_slot+0x81d/0x860 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff81090655>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x145/0x190
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04b0fd3>] btrfs_lookup_csum+0x93/0x160 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04b1a7d>] btrfs_lookup_bio_sums+0x19d/0x380 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04b4f49>] ? btrfs_bio_wq_end_io+0x59/0x140 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04bc125>] btrfs_submit_bio_hook+0x95/0x120 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04d661a>] submit_one_bio+0x5a/0x90 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04d9f76>] extent_read_full_page+0x46/0x50 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04bcc53>] btrfs_readpage+0x23/0x30 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffffa04c74c6>] btrfs_file_write+0x736/0x920 [btrfs]
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff81223206>] ? security_file_permission+0x16/0x20
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff811331ad>] ? rw_verify_area+0xed/0x160
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff8113333c>] vfs_write+0x11c/0x1e0
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff8113464a>] sys_pwrite64+0xaa/0xb0
[102331.753738] [<ffffffff8100ba1b>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [LOCKING] 2.6.33-rc8 btrfs vs java
2010-02-15 0:14 [LOCKING] 2.6.33-rc8 btrfs vs java Ed Tomlinson
@ 2010-02-15 15:56 ` Chris Mason
2010-02-15 22:19 ` Ed Tomlinson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Chris Mason @ 2010-02-15 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ed Tomlinson; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-btrfs
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:14:50PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Found this in my log for 2.6.33-rc8. Figgured it might be interesting since .33 is close.
The btrfs tree locking is very tricky for lockdep. I don't quite see
how you could hit this one without also deadlocking the machine, unless
it is a false positive.
So, did you deadlock the machine? ;)
-chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [LOCKING] 2.6.33-rc8 btrfs vs java
2010-02-15 15:56 ` Chris Mason
@ 2010-02-15 22:19 ` Ed Tomlinson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ed Tomlinson @ 2010-02-15 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Mason, linux-kernel, linux-btrfs
On Monday 15 February 2010 10:56:53 Chris Mason wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 07:14:50PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Found this in my log for 2.6.33-rc8. Figgured it might be interesting since .33 is close.
>
> The btrfs tree locking is very tricky for lockdep. I don't quite see
> how you could hit this one without also deadlocking the machine, unless
> it is a false positive.
>
> So, did you deadlock the machine? ;)
No. So maybe its a false positive?
Ed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-15 22:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-15 0:14 [LOCKING] 2.6.33-rc8 btrfs vs java Ed Tomlinson
2010-02-15 15:56 ` Chris Mason
2010-02-15 22:19 ` Ed Tomlinson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox