On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:51 -0500 Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
> > Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> going for the inode_lock twice?
> >>
> >
> > lockdep should catch that.
> >
>
> hey that's a good idea...! *sigh* sometimes I worry about myself... but
> hey at least I got it right. :)
>
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 2.6.22-rc3 #8
> ---------------------------------------------
> lt-fsstress/3285 is trying to acquire lock:
> (inode_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (inode_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80316cc9>]
> _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 3 locks held by lt-fsstress/3285:
> #0: (&inode->i_mutex/1){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8029f262>]
> do_rmdir+0x7c/0xe3
> #1: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80462809>]
> mutex_lock+0x22/0x24
> #2: (inode_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80316cc9>]
> _atomic_dec_and_lock+0x39/0x58
>
> stack backtrace:
>
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff8024e1fc>] __lock_acquire+0x155/0xbaa
> [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c
> [<ffffffff8024eccc>] lock_acquire+0x7b/0x9f
> [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c
> [<ffffffff80463bc9>] _spin_lock+0x1e/0x28
> [<ffffffff802b0de9>] __mark_inode_dirty+0xe2/0x16c
> [<ffffffff882dc7cc>] :udf:udf_write_aext+0x101/0x11b
> [<ffffffff882e5992>] :udf:extent_trunc+0xd6/0x123
> [<ffffffff882e5ab9>] :udf:udf_truncate_tail_extent+0xda/0x171
> [<ffffffff882dfc5e>] :udf:udf_drop_inode+0x26/0x35
> [<ffffffff802a726d>] iput+0x74/0x76
> [<ffffffff802a4e9b>] dentry_iput+0xa0/0xb8
> [<ffffffff802a612a>] prune_dcache+0xa2/0x174
> [<ffffffff802a4f3c>] d_kill+0x21/0x43
> [<ffffffff802a5eef>] prune_one_dentry+0x3a/0xef
> [<ffffffff802a6175>] prune_dcache+0xed/0x174
> [<ffffffff802a6253>] shrink_dcache_parent+0x21/0x10e
> [<ffffffff8029becd>] dentry_unhash+0x26/0x84
> [<ffffffff8029d23c>] vfs_rmdir+0x88/0x117
> [<ffffffff8029f287>] do_rmdir+0xa1/0xe3
> [<ffffffff8020cf4b>] syscall_trace_enter+0x8d/0x8f
> [<ffffffff8029f300>] sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
> [<ffffffff80209da5>] tracesys+0xdc/0xe1
>
Well. Documentation/filesystems/Locking says
drop_inode: no !!!inode_lock!!!
That patch is DOA, methinks.
-
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]
