On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 03:07:19PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 10:00:10PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote:
> >> xfs/012 13s ...[ 1851.323902]
> >> [ 1851.325479] =================================
> >> [ 1851.326551] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> >> [ 1851.326551] 3.9.0+ #1 Not tainted
> >> [ 1851.326551] ---------------------------------
> >> [ 1851.326551] inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-R} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
> >> [ 1851.326551] kswapd0/18 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> >> [ 1851.326551] (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){++++-+}, at: [<c11dcabf>]
> >> xfs_ilock+0x10f/0x190
> >> [ 1851.326551] {RECLAIM_FS-ON-R} state was registered at:
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c105e10a>] mark_held_locks+0x8a/0xf0
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c105e69c>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x5c/0xa0
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c109c52c>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x7c/0x670
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c10bfd8e>] new_slab+0x6e/0x2a0
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c14083a9>] __slab_alloc.isra.59.constprop.67+0x1d3/0x40a
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c10c12cd>] __kmalloc+0x10d/0x180
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c1199b56>] kmem_alloc+0x56/0xd0
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c1199be1>] kmem_zalloc+0x11/0xd0
> >> [ 1851.326551] [<c11c666e>] xfs_dabuf_map.isra.2.constprop.5+0x22e/0x520
> >
> > Yup, needs a KM_NOFS allocation there because we come through
> > here outside a transaction and so it doesn't get KM_NOFS implicitly
> > in this case. There's been a couple of these reported in the past
> > week or two - I need to do an audit and sweep them all up....
> >
> > Technically, though, this can't cause a deadlock on the inode we
> > hold a lock on here because it's a directory inode, not a regular
> > file and so it will never be seen in the reclaim data writeback path
> > nor on the inode LRU when the shrinker runs. So most likely it is a
> > false positive...
>
> Thanks for looking at it. There are going to be plenty of false
> positives out there. Is there a pecking order of what works best? As
> in...
>
> * IRQ (IRQs-off?) checking: worth reporting...?
> * sleep inside atomic sections: fascinating, but almost anything can trigger it
> * multiple-CPU deadlock detection: can only speculate on a uniprocessor system
> * circular dependency checking: YMMV
> * reclaim-fs checking: which I knew how much developers need to
> conform to reclaim-fs, or what it is
If there's XFS in the trace, then just post them. We try to fix
false positives (as well as real bugs) so lockdep reporting gets more
accurate and less noisy over time.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
