Hi Mark,
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:54:56 +0000 Mark Jackson <mpfj-list@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Just tested the current next-20130226 on a custom AM335X board, and I received the JFFS2 deadlock shown below.
Is this new today? is it reproducible? Does if ail for Linus' tree?
Al, could this be something to do with the new stuff in the vfs tree?
> Regards
> Mark JACKSON
> ---
> [ 3.250349] jffs2: notice: (1) jffs2_build_xattr_subsystem: complete building xattr subsystem, 0 of xdatum (0 unchecked, 0 orphan) and 0 of xref (0 dead, 0 orphan) found.
> [ 3.268364] VFS: Mounted root (jffs2 filesystem) readonly on device 31:6.
> [ 3.277233] devtmpfs: mounted
> [ 3.280982] Freeing init memory: 332K
> [ 3.706697]
> [ 3.708306] ======================================================
> [ 3.714804] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 3.721398] 3.8.0-next-20130226-dirty #10 Not tainted
> [ 3.726708] -------------------------------------------------------
> [ 3.733297] rcS/686 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 3.737969] (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<c00f0af4>] might_fault+0x3c/0x90
> [ 3.745437]
> [ 3.745437] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 3.751569] (&f->sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c023d128>] jffs2_readdir+0x44/0x1a8
> [ 3.758748]
> [ 3.758748] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 3.758748]
> [ 3.767348]
> [ 3.767348] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 3.775215]
> -> #1 (&f->sem){+.+.+.}:
> [ 3.779184] [<c0092df0>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104
> [ 3.784701] [<c04b76e4>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x334
> [ 3.790666] [<c023d950>] jffs2_readpage+0x20/0x44
> [ 3.796261] [<c00d9d38>] __do_page_cache_readahead+0x2a0/0x2cc
> [ 3.803050] [<c00da004>] ra_submit+0x28/0x30
> [ 3.808187] [<c00d179c>] filemap_fault+0x304/0x458
> [ 3.813884] [<c00f0c58>] __do_fault+0x6c/0x490
> [ 3.819203] [<c00f3c5c>] handle_pte_fault+0xb0/0x6f0
> [ 3.825071] [<c00f433c>] handle_mm_fault+0xa0/0xd4
> [ 3.830755] [<c04bbdcc>] do_page_fault+0x2a0/0x3d4
> [ 3.836449] [<c000845c>] do_DataAbort+0x30/0x9c
> [ 3.841861] [<c04ba2a4>] __dabt_svc+0x44/0x80
> [ 3.847089] [<c0289c34>] __clear_user_std+0x1c/0x64
> [ 3.852877]
> -> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}:
> [ 3.857393] [<c00927ec>] __lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0
> [ 3.863353] [<c0092df0>] lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104
> [ 3.868855] [<c00f0b18>] might_fault+0x60/0x90
> [ 3.874174] [<c011bc3c>] filldir+0x5c/0x158
> [ 3.879230] [<c023d1c0>] jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8
> [ 3.884823] [<c011becc>] vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4
> [ 3.890144] [<c011bfcc>] sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0
> [ 3.895554] [<c0013820>] ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c
> [ 3.901251]
> [ 3.901251] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 3.901251]
> [ 3.909668] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 3.909668]
> [ 3.915892] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 3.920652] ---- ----
> [ 3.925411] lock(&f->sem);
> [ 3.928451] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> [ 3.934688] lock(&f->sem);
> [ 3.940376] lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> [ 3.943965]
> [ 3.943965] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 3.943965]
> [ 3.950196] 2 locks held by rcS/686:
> [ 3.953952] #0: (&type->i_mutex_dir_key){+.+.+.}, at: [<c011be90>] vfs_readdir+0x5c/0xb4
> [ 3.962686] #1: (&f->sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<c023d128>] jffs2_readdir+0x44/0x1a8
> [ 3.970320]
> [ 3.970320] stack backtrace:
> [ 3.974930] [<c001b158>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c008f29c>] (print_circular_bug+0x1d0/0x2dc)
> [ 3.984815] [<c008f29c>] (print_circular_bug+0x1d0/0x2dc) from [<c00927ec>] (__lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0)
> [ 3.994975] [<c00927ec>] (__lock_acquire+0x1d70/0x1de0) from [<c0092df0>] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104)
> [ 4.004494] [<c0092df0>] (lock_acquire+0x9c/0x104) from [<c00f0b18>] (might_fault+0x60/0x90)
> [ 4.013376] [<c00f0b18>] (might_fault+0x60/0x90) from [<c011bc3c>] (filldir+0x5c/0x158)
> [ 4.021802] [<c011bc3c>] (filldir+0x5c/0x158) from [<c023d1c0>] (jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8)
> [ 4.030502] [<c023d1c0>] (jffs2_readdir+0xdc/0x1a8) from [<c011becc>] (vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4)
> [ 4.039477] [<c011becc>] (vfs_readdir+0x98/0xb4) from [<c011bfcc>] (sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0)
> [ 4.048270] [<c011bfcc>] (sys_getdents+0x74/0xd0) from [<c0013820>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpEIfg4qfIjS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
