On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:35:27AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 08:20:57 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:03:19AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 05:32:43 +0800
> > > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > static void bdev_inode_switch_bdi(struct inode *inode,
> > > > struct backing_dev_info *dst)
> > > > {
> > > > - spin_lock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > > > + struct backing_dev_info *old = inode->i_data.backing_dev_info;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlikely(dst == old)) /* deadlock avoidance */
> > > > + return;
> > >
> > > Why does this occur?
> >
> > That's a fix from Hugh Dickins:
>
> yes, I remember it. And I remember rubberiness about this at the time ;)
>
> > Yesterday's mmotm hangs at startup, and with lockdep it reports:
> > BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#1, blkid/284 - with bdi_lock_two()
> > called from bdev_inode_switch_bdi() in the backtrace. It appears
> > that this function is sometimes called with new the same as old.
> >
> > The problem becomes clear when looking at bdi_lock_two(), which will
> > immediately deadlock itself if called with (wb1 == wb2):
> >
> > void bdi_lock_two(struct bdi_writeback *wb1, struct bdi_writeback *wb2)
> > {
> > if (wb1 < wb2) {
> > spin_lock(&wb1->list_lock);
> > spin_lock_nested(&wb2->list_lock, 1);
> > } else {
> > spin_lock(&wb2->list_lock);
> > spin_lock_nested(&wb1->list_lock, 1);
> > }
> > }
>
> But why are we asking bdev_inode_switch_bdi() to switch an inode to a
> bdi where it already resides?
That's definitely an interesting problem.
I suspect it to be some inode pointing to &default_backing_dev_info
switches to the same &default_backing_dev_info, and did manage to
catch one such case, called from __blkdev_get():
1196 out_clear:
1197 disk_put_part(bdev->bd_part);
1198 bdev->bd_disk = NULL;
1199 bdev->bd_part = NULL;
1200 WARN_ON(bdev->bd_inode->i_data.backing_dev_info ==
1201 &default_backing_dev_info);
==> 1202 bdev_inode_switch_bdi(bdev->bd_inode, &default_backing_dev_info);
1203 if (bdev != bdev->bd_contains)
1204 __blkdev_put(bdev->bd_contains, mode, 1);
1205 bdev->bd_contains = NULL;
The debug call trace is:
[ 88.751130] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 88.751546] WARNING: at /c/wfg/linux-next/fs/block_dev.c:1201 __blkdev_get+0x38a/0x40a()
[ 88.752201] Hardware name:
[ 88.752554] Modules linked in:
[ 88.752866] Pid: 3214, comm: blkid Not tainted 3.0.0-rc2-next-20110607+ #372
[ 88.753354] Call Trace:
[ 88.753610] [<ffffffff810700e0>] warn_slowpath_common+0x85/0x9d
[ 88.753987] [<ffffffff81070112>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x1c
[ 88.754428] [<ffffffff8116c57e>] __blkdev_get+0x38a/0x40a
[ 88.754798] [<ffffffff8116c8e3>] ? blkdev_get+0x2e5/0x2e5
[ 88.755238] [<ffffffff8116c7cb>] blkdev_get+0x1cd/0x2e5
[ 88.755622] [<ffffffff8192817b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x2f
[ 88.759131] [<ffffffff8116c8e3>] ? blkdev_get+0x2e5/0x2e5
[ 88.759527] [<ffffffff8116c961>] blkdev_open+0x7e/0x82
[ 88.759896] [<ffffffff8113e84f>] __dentry_open+0x1c8/0x31d
[ 88.760341] [<ffffffff8192817b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x2f
[ 88.760737] [<ffffffff8113f65c>] nameidata_to_filp+0x48/0x4f
[ 88.761126] [<ffffffff8114bafa>] do_last+0x5c8/0x71f
[ 88.761552] [<ffffffff8114cd7b>] path_openat+0x29d/0x34f
[ 88.761932] [<ffffffff8114ce6a>] do_filp_open+0x3d/0x89
[ 88.762367] [<ffffffff8192817b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x2f
[ 88.762765] [<ffffffff811577a1>] ? alloc_fd+0x10b/0x11d
[ 88.763200] [<ffffffff8113f771>] do_sys_open+0x10e/0x1a0
[ 88.763581] [<ffffffff81111813>] ? __do_fault+0x29a/0x46e
[ 88.763960] [<ffffffff8113f823>] sys_open+0x20/0x22
[ 88.764380] [<ffffffff8192ed42>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 88.764782] ---[ end trace 28100c425ce9e560 ]---
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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
