public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, neilb@suse.de,
	nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, bfields@fieldses.org,
	andros@citi.umich.edu
Subject: [PATCH] NFS4  fix for recursive locking problem.
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:24:56 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <454755B0.5020103@in.ibm.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2577 bytes --]

When I was performing some operations on NFS, I got below error on server side.

===========================================================

=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.19-prep #1
---------------------------------------------
nfsd4/3525 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0611e5a>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24

but task is already holding lock:
 (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0611e5a>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24

other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by nfsd4/3525:
 #0:  (client_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0611e5a>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 #1:  (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<c0611e5a>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24

stack backtrace:
 [<c04051ed>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x58/0x16a
 [<c04057fa>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
 [<c0405913>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
 [<c043b6f1>] __lock_acquire+0x778/0x99c
 [<c043be86>] lock_acquire+0x4b/0x6d
 [<c0611ceb>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xbc/0x20a
 [<c0611e5a>] mutex_lock+0x21/0x24
 [<c047fd7e>] vfs_rmdir+0x76/0xf8
 [<f94b7ce9>] nfsd4_clear_clid_dir+0x2c/0x41 [nfsd]
 [<f94b7de9>] nfsd4_remove_clid_dir+0xb1/0xe8 [nfsd]
 [<f94b307b>] laundromat_main+0x9b/0x1c3 [nfsd]
 [<c04333d6>] run_workqueue+0x7a/0xbb
 [<c0433d0b>] worker_thread+0xd2/0x107
 [<c0436285>] kthread+0xc3/0xf2
 [<c0402005>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
===================================================================
Cause for this problem was,2 successive mutex_lock calls on 2 diffrent inodes ,as shown below
======================================================
static int
nfsd4_clear_clid_dir(struct dentry *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
{
        int status;

        /* For now this directory should already be empty, but we empty it of
         * any regular files anyway, just in case the directory was created by
         * a kernel from the future.... */
        nfsd4_list_rec_dir(dentry, nfsd4_remove_clid_file);
        mutex_lock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
        status = vfs_rmdir(dir->d_inode, dentry);
=======================================================
int vfs_rmdir(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
{
        int error = may_delete(dir, dentry, 1);

        if (error)
                return error;

        if (!dir->i_op || !dir->i_op->rmdir)
                return -EPERM;

        DQUOT_INIT(dir);

        mutex_lock(&dentry->d_inode->i_mutex);
===========================================================
So I have developed the patch to overcome this problem. Please let me know your comments on this.

Signed-off-by: Srinivasa DS <srinivasa@in.ibm.com>




[-- Attachment #2: nfs4.fix --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 734 bytes --]

 nfs4recover.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c	2006-10-24 04:32:02.000000000 +0530
+++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/fs/nfsd/nfs4recover.c	2006-10-31 18:27:30.000000000 +0530
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@
 	 * any regular files anyway, just in case the directory was created by
 	 * a kernel from the future.... */
 	nfsd4_list_rec_dir(dentry, nfsd4_remove_clid_file);
-	mutex_lock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
+	mutex_lock_nested(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
 	status = vfs_rmdir(dir->d_inode, dentry);
 	mutex_unlock(&dir->d_inode->i_mutex);
 	return status;

             reply	other threads:[~2006-10-31 13:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-31 13:54 Srinivasa Ds [this message]
2006-11-07  0:26 ` [PATCH] NFS4 fix for recursive locking problem J. Bruce Fields

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=454755B0.5020103@in.ibm.com \
    --to=srinivasa@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=andros@citi.umich.edu \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /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