The patch titled
lockdep: fix blkdev_open() warning
has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning.patch
See http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/patches/stuff/added-to-mm.txt to find
out what to do about this
------------------------------------------------------
Subject: lockdep: fix blkdev_open() warning
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 07:57 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> ---------------------------------------------
> parted/7929 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&bdev->bd_mutex){--..}, at: [<c105eb8d>] __blkdev_put+0x1e/0x13c
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&bdev->bd_mutex){--..}, at: [<c105eec6>] do_open+0x72/0x3a8
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 1 lock held by parted/7929:
> #0: (&bdev->bd_mutex){--..}, at: [<c105eec6>] do_open+0x72/0x3a8
> stack backtrace:
> [<c1003aad>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x58/0x15b
> [<c100495f>] show_trace+0xd/0x10
> [<c1004979>] dump_stack+0x17/0x1a
> [<c102dee5>] __lock_acquire+0x753/0x99c
> [<c102e3b0>] lock_acquire+0x4a/0x6a
> [<c1204501>] mutex_lock_nested+0xc8/0x20c
> [<c105eb8d>] __blkdev_put+0x1e/0x13c
> [<c105ecc4>] blkdev_put+0xa/0xc
> [<c105f18a>] do_open+0x336/0x3a8
> [<c105f21b>] blkdev_open+0x1f/0x4c
> [<c1057b40>] __dentry_open+0xc7/0x1aa
> [<c1057c91>] nameidata_to_filp+0x1c/0x2e
> [<c1057cd1>] do_filp_open+0x2e/0x35
> [<c1057dd7>] do_sys_open+0x38/0x68
> [<c1057e33>] sys_open+0x16/0x18
> [<c1002845>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
OK, I'm having a look here; its all new to me so bear with me.
blkdev_open() calls
do_open(bdev, ...,BD_MUTEX_NORMAL) and takes
mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_mutex, BD_MUTEX_NORMAL)
then something fails, and we're thrown to:
out_first: where
if (bdev != bdev->bd_contains)
blkdev_put(bdev->bd_contains) which is
__blkdev_put(bdev->bd_contains, BD_MUTEX_NORMAL) which does
mutex_lock_nested(&bdev->bd_contains->bd_mutex, BD_MUTEX_NORMAL) <--- lockdep trigger
When going to out_first, dbev->bd_contains is either bdev or whole, and
since we take the branch it must be whole. So it seems to me the
following patch would be the right one:
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
---
fs/block_dev.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN fs/block_dev.c~lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning fs/block_dev.c
--- a/fs/block_dev.c~lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning
+++ a/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -980,7 +980,7 @@ out_first:
bdev->bd_disk = NULL;
bdev->bd_inode->i_data.backing_dev_info = &default_backing_dev_info;
if (bdev != bdev->bd_contains)
- blkdev_put(bdev->bd_contains);
+ __blkdev_put(bdev->bd_contains, BD_MUTEX_WHOLE);
bdev->bd_contains = NULL;
put_disk(disk);
module_put(owner);
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx are
lockdep-fix-blkdev_open-warning.patch
mm-tracking-shared-dirty-pages.patch
mm-balance-dirty-pages.patch
mm-optimize-the-new-mprotect-code-a-bit.patch
mm-small-cleanup-of-install_page.patch
mm-fixup-do_wp_page.patch
mm-msync-cleanup.patch
mm-tracking-shared-dirty-pages-checks.patch
mm-tracking-shared-dirty-pages-wimp.patch
mm-swap-write-failure-fixup.patch
mm-swap-write-failure-fixup-update.patch
mm-swap-write-failure-fixup-fix.patch
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
