On 12/20/2011 08:31 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Subject : [BUG] deadlock: jfs (3.2.0-rc4-00154-g8e8da02) >> Submitter : Nico Schottelius <nico-linux-20111201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date : 2011-12-06 10:05 >> Message-ID : 20111206100533.GB6161@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132317917827825&w=2 > > That's an odd bug-report. I think Nico should try to cut-and-paste > more of the relevant problem.. > > It's all there in the attached xz-file, but I doubt anybody followed > up on it because it's so hidden.. > > Unpacked, and added Dave and jfs-discussion to the cc: > > [ 6281.127353] ================================= > [ 6281.127355] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] > [ 6281.127358] 3.2.0-rc4-00154-g8e8da02 #91 > [ 6281.127360] --------------------------------- > [ 6281.127363] inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage. > [ 6281.127366] kswapd0/30 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes: > [ 6281.127368] (&jfs_ip->rdwrlock#2){++++?+}, at: > [<ffffffffa01958d7>] jfs_get_block+0x57/0x220 [jfs] > [ 6281.127381] {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at: > [ 6281.127383] [<ffffffff810a2c71>] mark_held_locks+0x61/0x140 > [ 6281.127392] [<ffffffff810a3401>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x71/0xd0 > [ 6281.127399] [<ffffffff8115daed>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x2d/0x170 > [ 6281.127406] [<ffffffff8124d7d6>] radix_tree_preload+0x66/0xf0 > [ 6281.127414] [<ffffffff81110e93>] add_to_page_cache_locked+0x73/0x170 > [ 6281.127422] [<ffffffff81110fb1>] add_to_page_cache_lru+0x21/0x50 > [ 6281.127428] [<ffffffff8111112a>] do_read_cache_page+0x6a/0x170 > [ 6281.127434] [<ffffffff8111127c>] read_cache_page_async+0x1c/0x20 > [ 6281.127441] [<ffffffff8111128e>] read_cache_page+0xe/0x20 > [ 6281.127446] [<ffffffffa01ae406>] __get_metapage+0x1c6/0x5c0 [jfs] > [ 6281.127455] [<ffffffffa01a018a>] diWrite+0xea/0x7f0 [jfs] > [ 6281.127461] [<ffffffffa01b3b04>] txCommit+0x1d4/0xe40 [jfs] > [ 6281.127468] [<ffffffffa01982e3>] jfs_unlink+0x2a3/0x390 [jfs] > [ 6281.127474] [<ffffffff8118255f>] vfs_unlink+0x9f/0x110 > [ 6281.127479] [<ffffffff8118277a>] do_unlinkat+0x1aa/0x1d0 > [ 6281.127482] [<ffffffff81184236>] sys_unlink+0x16/0x20 > [ 6281.127486] [<ffffffff8143e202>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > [ 6281.127491] irq event stamp: 26965295 > [ 6281.127493] hardirqs last enabled at (26965295): > [<ffffffff8111a3d5>] clear_page_dirty_for_io+0x105/0x130 > [ 6281.127498] hardirqs last disabled at (26965294): > [<ffffffff8111a378>] clear_page_dirty_for_io+0xa8/0x130 > [ 6281.127503] softirqs last enabled at (26964300): > [<ffffffff8106cda7>] __do_softirq+0x137/0x2a0 > [ 6281.127508] softirqs last disabled at (26964283): > [<ffffffff814404fc>] call_softirq+0x1c/0x30 > [ 6281.127513] > [ 6281.127514] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 6281.127516] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [ 6281.127517] > [ 6281.127518] CPU0 > [ 6281.127519] ---- > [ 6281.127521] lock(&jfs_ip->rdwrlock); > [ 6281.127524] <Interrupt> > [ 6281.127525] lock(&jfs_ip->rdwrlock); > [ 6281.127528] > [ 6281.127529] *** DEADLOCK *** > [ 6281.127529] > [ 6281.127531] no locks held by kswapd0/30. > [ 6281.127533] > [ 6281.127533] stack backtrace: > [ 6281.127536] Pid: 30, comm: kswapd0 Tainted: G C > 3.2.0-rc4-00154-g8e8da02 #91 > [ 6281.127539] Call Trace: > [ 6281.127545] [<ffffffff8143374c>] print_usage_bug.part.34+0x285/0x294 > [ 6281.127552] [<ffffffff8102494f>] ? save_stack_trace+0x2f/0x50 > [ 6281.127559] [<ffffffff8109ffe0>] mark_lock+0x540/0x600 > [ 6281.127564] [<ffffffff8109ef60>] ? > print_irq_inversion_bug.part.31+0x1f0/0x1f0 > [ 6281.127568] [<ffffffff810a0677>] __lock_acquire+0x5d7/0x1d10 > [ 6281.127573] [<ffffffff81118394>] ? free_pcppages_bulk+0x34/0x430 > [ 6281.127580] [<ffffffffa01958d7>] ? jfs_get_block+0x57/0x220 [jfs] > [ 6281.127584] [<ffffffff810a23a2>] lock_acquire+0x92/0x160 > [ 6281.127590] [<ffffffffa01958d7>] ? jfs_get_block+0x57/0x220 [jfs] > [ 6281.127595] [<ffffffff811a5253>] ? create_empty_buffers+0x53/0xe0 > [ 6281.127600] [<ffffffff8108e77f>] down_write_nested+0x2f/0x60 > [ 6281.127606] [<ffffffffa01958d7>] ? jfs_get_block+0x57/0x220 [jfs] > [ 6281.127612] [<ffffffffa01958d7>] jfs_get_block+0x57/0x220 [jfs] > [ 6281.127616] [<ffffffff8143d24b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x60 > [ 6281.127620] [<ffffffff811a65d1>] __block_write_full_page+0x101/0x3a0 > [ 6281.127625] [<ffffffff811a5fe0>] ? block_read_full_page+0x3d0/0x3d0 > [ 6281.127631] [<ffffffffa0195880>] ? jfs_writepage+0x20/0x20 [jfs] > [ 6281.127637] [<ffffffff811a6954>] block_write_full_page_endio+0xe4/0x130 > [ 6281.127642] [<ffffffff811a69b5>] block_write_full_page+0x15/0x20 > [ 6281.127651] [<ffffffffa0195878>] jfs_writepage+0x18/0x20 [jfs] > [ 6281.127657] [<ffffffff8112427c>] shrink_page_list+0x56c/0x980 > [ 6281.127662] [<ffffffff8111e596>] ? __pagevec_release+0x26/0x40 > [ 6281.127666] [<ffffffff81124ac2>] shrink_inactive_list+0x152/0x4f0 > [ 6281.127670] [<ffffffff8112563c>] shrink_zone+0x47c/0x5c0 > [ 6281.127673] [<ffffffff81122fef>] ? shrink_slab+0x1ff/0x380 > [ 6281.127678] [<ffffffff8143945b>] ? __schedule+0x35b/0xa30 > [ 6281.127682] [<ffffffff811269c5>] balance_pgdat+0x4e5/0x6d0 > [ 6281.127685] [<ffffffff81126d28>] kswapd+0x178/0x440 > [ 6281.127691] [<ffffffff81089840>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x60/0x60 > [ 6281.127695] [<ffffffff81126bb0>] ? balance_pgdat+0x6d0/0x6d0 > [ 6281.127699] [<ffffffff81088e97>] kthread+0xa7/0xb0 > [ 6281.127703] [<ffffffff810a2efd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 > [ 6281.127707] [<ffffffff81440404>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > [ 6281.127711] [<ffffffff8143d838>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13 > [ 6281.127715] [<ffffffff81088df0>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70 > [ 6281.127719] [<ffffffff81440400>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13 > > Hmm? > > Linus I don't think this is a regression. It's been seen before, but the patch never got submitted, or was lost somewhere. I believe this will fix it. vfs: __read_cache_page should use gfp argument rather than GFP_KERNEL lockdep reports a deadlock in jfs because a special inode's rw semaphore is taken recursively. The mapping's gfp mask is GFP_NOFS, but is not used when __read_cache_page() calls add_to_page_cache_lru(). Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@xxxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c index c106d3b..c9ea3df 100644 --- a/mm/filemap.c +++ b/mm/filemap.c @@ -1828,7 +1828,7 @@ repeat: page = __page_cache_alloc(gfp | __GFP_COLD); if (!page) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); - err = add_to_page_cache_lru(page, mapping, index, GFP_KERNEL); + err = add_to_page_cache_lru(page, mapping, index, gfp); if (unlikely(err)) { page_cache_release(page); if (err == -EEXIST) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
