On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:02:00PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Lockdep reports:
>
> =============================================
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 3.9.0+ #3 Not tainted
> ---------------------------------------------
> setquota/28368 is trying to acquire lock:
> (sb_internal){++++.?}, at: [<c11e8846>] xfs_trans_alloc+0x26/0x50
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (sb_internal){++++.?}, at: [<c11e8846>] xfs_trans_alloc+0x26/0x50
>
> from xfs_qm_scall_setqlim()->xfs_dqread() when a dquot needs to be
> allocated.
>
> xfs_qm_scall_setqlim() is starting a transaction and then not
> passing it into xfs_qm_dqet() and so it starts it's own transaction
> when allocating the dquot. Splat!
>
> Fix this by not allocating the dquot in xfs_qm_scall_setqlim()
> inside the setqlim transaction. This requires getting the dquot
> first (and allocating it if necessary) then dropping and relocking
> the dquot before joining it to the setqlim transaction.
>
> Reported-by: Michael L. Semon <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
