On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:38:30 +0200 Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Doing some testing on CFQ, I ran into this 100% reproducible report:
>
> =======================================================
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.21-rc7 #5
> -------------------------------------------------------
> fio/9741 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<b018cb34>] dio_get_page+0x54/0x161
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<b038c6e5>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
This is the correct ranking: i_mutex outside mmap_sem.
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #1 (&inode->i_mutex){--..}:
> [<b013e3fb>] __lock_acquire+0xdee/0xf9c
> [<b013e600>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x70
> [<b038c4a5>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x73/0x297
> [<b038c6e5>] mutex_lock+0x1c/0x1f
> [<b01b17e9>] reiserfs_file_release+0x54/0x447
> [<b016afe7>] __fput+0x53/0x101
> [<b016b0ee>] fput+0x19/0x1c
> [<b015bcd5>] remove_vma+0x3b/0x4d
> [<b015c659>] do_munmap+0x17f/0x1cf
> [<b015c6db>] sys_munmap+0x32/0x42
> [<b0103f04>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5d/0x99
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
>
> -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
> [<b013e259>] __lock_acquire+0xc4c/0xf9c
> [<b013e600>] lock_acquire+0x57/0x70
> [<b0137b92>] down_read+0x3a/0x4c
> [<b018cb34>] dio_get_page+0x54/0x161
> [<b018d7a9>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x514/0xe2a
> [<b01cf449>] ext3_direct_IO+0x98/0x1e5
> [<b014e8df>] generic_file_direct_IO+0x63/0x133
> [<b01500e9>] generic_file_aio_read+0x16b/0x222
> [<b017f8b6>] aio_rw_vect_retry+0x5a/0x116
> [<b0180147>] aio_run_iocb+0x69/0x129
> [<b0180a78>] io_submit_one+0x194/0x2eb
> [<b0181331>] sys_io_submit+0x92/0xe7
> [<b0103f90>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
> [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
But here reiserfs is taking i_mutex in its file_operations.release(), which
can be called under mmap_sem.
Vladimir's recent de14569f94513279e3d44d9571a421e9da1759ae. "resierfs:
avoid tail packing if an inode was ever mmapped" comes real close to this
code, but afaict it did not cause this bug.
I can't think of anything which we've done in the 2.6.21 cycle which would have
caused this to start happening. Odd.
> The test run was fio, the job file used is:
>
> # fio job file snip below
> [global]
> bs=4k
> buffered=0
> ioengine=libaio
> iodepth=4
> thread
>
> [readers]
> numjobs=8
> size=128m
> rw=read
> # fio job file snip above
>
> Filesystem was ext3, default mkfs and mount options. Kernel was
> 2.6.21-rc7 as of this morning, with some CFQ patches applied.
>
It's interesting that lockdep learned the (wrong) ranking from a reiserfs
operation then later detected it being violated by ext3.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
