Let's add fsdevel. On Monday 02 February 2009 21:17:35 MinChan Kim wrote: > Nick's new lockdep of 'annotate reclaim context(__GFP_NOFS)' reported > following message. In my kernel(2.6.28-rc2-mm1 + nick's patch : > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4251/), > > During 'dd if=/dev/zero of=test.image bs=4096 count=2621440' of two > processes, following message occured. > > I think it might be useful case of 'annotate reclaim context'. > > [ 331.718116] ================================= > [ 331.718120] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ] > [ 331.718124] 2.6.28-rc2-mm1-lockdep #6 > [ 331.718126] --------------------------------- > [ 331.718129] inconsistent {ov-reclaim-W} -> {in-reclaim-W} usage. > [ 331.718133] kswapd0/218 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] takes: > [ 331.718136] (&inode->inotify_mutex){--..+.}, at: [<c01dba70>] > inotify_inode_is_dead+0x20/0x90 [ 331.718148] {ov-reclaim-W} state was > registered at: > [ 331.718150] [<c01532ee>] mark_held_locks+0x3e/0x90 > [ 331.718157] [<c015338e>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x4e/0x80 > [ 331.718162] [<c01acee6>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x26/0xf0 > [ 331.718166] [<c0243fa0>] idr_pre_get+0x50/0x70 > [ 331.718172] [<c01db761>] inotify_handle_get_wd+0x21/0x60 > [ 331.718176] [<c01dc012>] inotify_add_watch+0x52/0xe0 > [ 331.718181] [<c01dcca8>] sys_inotify_add_watch+0x148/0x170 > [ 331.718185] [<c0104032>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb So we can enter __GFP_FS reclaim here, with inode->inotify_mutex held. > [ 331.718190] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff > [ 331.718205] irq event stamp: 1288446 > [ 331.718207] hardirqs last enabled at (1288445): [<c0179695>] > call_rcu+0x75/0x90 [ 331.718213] hardirqs last disabled at (1288446): > [<c0370103>] mutex_lock_nested+0x53/0x2f0 [ 331.718221] softirqs last > enabled at (1284622): [<c0132fa2>] __do_softirq+0x132/0x180 [ 331.718226] > softirqs last disabled at (1284617): [<c0133079>] do_softirq+0x89/0x90 [ > 331.718231] > [ 331.718232] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 331.718236] 2 locks held by kswapd0/218: > [ 331.718238] #0: (shrinker_rwsem){----..}, at: [<c0192d65>] > shrink_slab+0x25/0x1a0 [ 331.718248] #1: > (&type->s_umount_key#4){-----.}, at: [<c01c21fb>] > shrink_dcache_memory+0xfb/0x1a0 [ 331.718259] > [ 331.718260] stack backtrace: > [ 331.718263] Pid: 218, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 2.6.28-rc2-mm1-lockdep > #6 [ 331.718266] Call Trace: > [ 331.718272] [<c0151726>] print_usage_bug+0x176/0x1c0 > [ 331.718276] [<c0152d05>] mark_lock+0xb05/0x10b0 > [ 331.718282] [<c018c0e9>] ? __free_pages_ok+0x349/0x450 > [ 331.718287] [<c0155362>] __lock_acquire+0x602/0xa80 > [ 331.718291] [<c01540ff>] ? validate_chain+0x3ef/0x1050 > [ 331.718296] [<c0155851>] lock_acquire+0x71/0xa0 > [ 331.718300] [<c01dba70>] ? inotify_inode_is_dead+0x20/0x90 > [ 331.718305] [<c037014d>] mutex_lock_nested+0x9d/0x2f0 > [ 331.718310] [<c01dba70>] ? inotify_inode_is_dead+0x20/0x90 > [ 331.718314] [<c01dba70>] ? inotify_inode_is_dead+0x20/0x90 > [ 331.718318] [<c01dba70>] inotify_inode_is_dead+0x20/0x90 > [ 331.718323] [<c024e2d6>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x46/0x80 > [ 331.718328] [<c01c1d14>] dentry_iput+0xa4/0xc0 > [ 331.718333] [<c01c1dfb>] d_kill+0x3b/0x60 > [ 331.718337] [<c01c1fe6>] __shrink_dcache_sb+0x1c6/0x2c0 > [ 331.718342] [<c01c228d>] shrink_dcache_memory+0x18d/0x1a0 > [ 331.718347] [<c0192e6b>] shrink_slab+0x12b/0x1a0 > [ 331.718351] [<c01939ff>] kswapd+0x3af/0x5c0 > [ 331.718356] [<c01910a0>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x220 > [ 331.718362] [<c0142800>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 > [ 331.718366] [<c0193650>] ? kswapd+0x0/0x5c0 > [ 331.718371] [<c01424f7>] kthread+0x47/0x80 > [ 331.718375] [<c01424b0>] ? kthread+0x0/0x80 > [ 331.718380] [<c01054f7>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 And here we take inode->inotify_mutex from inside __GFP_FS reclaim context. However, I don't think it should be possible to be the same inode in both cases required to achieve a deadlock. Because in the first trace, we have a reference to the dentry... I think. Hmm, in dentry_iput, we do this if (!inode->i_nlink) fsnotify_inoderemove(inode); outside any locks. What is preventing races with i_nlink? Shouldn't this logic belong in inode.c? (what, exactly, are the semantics of this event?) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
