Andrew Morton wrote: > (cc's added) > > On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 11:23:33 +0800 Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Thread 1: >> for ((; ;)) >> { >> mount -t cgroup -o cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 >> mkdir /mnt/0 > /dev/null 2>&1 >> rmdir /mnt/0 > /dev/null 2>&1 >> umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 >> } >> >> Thread 2: >> for ((; ;)) >> { >> mount -t cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 >> umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 >> } >> >> (Note: Again it is irrelevant which cgroup subsys is used.) >> >> After a while this showed up: >> >> ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636 mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2() >> Hardware name: Aspire SA85 >> Modules linked in: bridge stp llc autofs4 dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod r8169 parport_pc mii parport sg button sata_sis pata_sis ata_generic libata sd_mod scsi_mod ext3 jbd mbcache uhci_hcd ohci_hcd ehci_hcd [last unloaded: scsi_wait_scan] >> Pid: 4745, comm: umount Not tainted 2.6.28 #479 >> Call Trace: >> [<c042bbe3>] warn_slowpath+0x79/0x8f >> [<c044babf>] ? __lock_acquire+0x69a/0x700 >> [<c04ae44e>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x79/0xf2 >> [<c04ae481>] mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2 >> [<c04ae968>] sys_umount+0x26a/0x2b1 >> [<c04ae9c1>] sys_oldumount+0x12/0x14 >> [<c0403251>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31 >> ---[ end trace 79d0ab4bef01333f ]--- >> >> The WARNING is: WARN_ON(atomic_read(&mnt->__mnt_writers)); > > OK, I'm all confused. Here we see a WARN_ON triggered, but in > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/4/352 with the same testcase we're seeing a > lockdep warning. > They are 2 testcases with small difference ;) case 1: mount cat whichever control file umount case 2: mount mkdir /cgroup/0 rmdir /cgroup/0 umount > You refer to Arjan's "lockdep: annotate sb ->s_umount" patch - but > that's over two years old. > > And you say "The changelog said s_umount needs to be classified as > per-sb, but actually it made it as per-filesystem." But what is the > difference between per-sb and per-fs? > a filesystem can be single-sb or multile, isn't it? that's struct super_lock and struct file_system_type. I may be wrong here, since I don't know much about VFS... > More info here: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12673 > > This bug report seems to be all over the place. > > Is it a post-2.6.28 regression, btw? > I think it was introduced since cgroup was introduced. But it's hard to trigger in real-life, though it's easy using this test case. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers