On 09/06/2013 05:35 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 05:17:10PM -0400, Michael L. Semon wrote: > .... >> [ 814.376620] XFS (sdb4): Mounting Filesystem >> [ 815.050778] XFS (sdb4): Ending clean mount >> [ 823.169368] >> [ 823.170932] ====================================================== >> [ 823.172146] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] >> [ 823.172146] 3.11.0+ #5 Not tainted >> [ 823.172146] ------------------------------------------------------- >> [ 823.172146] dirstress/5276 is trying to acquire lock: >> [ 823.172146] (sb_internal){.+.+.+}, at: [<c11c5e60>] xfs_trans_alloc+0x1f/0x35 >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] but task is already holding lock: >> [ 823.172146] (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){+++++.}, at: [<c1206cfb>] xfs_ilock+0x100/0x1f1 >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] which lock already depends on the new lock. >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] -> #1 (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){+++++.}: >> [ 823.172146] [<c1070a11>] __lock_acquire+0x345/0xa11 >> [ 823.172146] [<c1071c45>] lock_acquire+0x88/0x17e >> [ 823.172146] [<c14bff98>] _raw_spin_lock+0x47/0x74 >> [ 823.172146] [<c1116247>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x171/0x38c >> [ 823.172146] [<c111acab>] __set_page_dirty+0x5f/0x95 >> [ 823.172146] [<c111b93e>] mark_buffer_dirty+0x58/0x12b >> [ 823.172146] [<c111baff>] __block_commit_write.isra.17+0x64/0x82 >> [ 823.172146] [<c111c197>] block_write_end+0x2b/0x53 >> [ 823.172146] [<c111c201>] generic_write_end+0x42/0x9a >> [ 823.172146] [<c11a42d5>] xfs_vm_write_end+0x60/0xbe >> [ 823.172146] [<c10bd47a>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x140/0x20f >> [ 823.172146] [<c11b2347>] xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0x10b/0x205 >> [ 823.172146] [<c11b24ee>] xfs_file_aio_write+0xad/0xec >> [ 823.172146] [<c10f0c5f>] do_sync_write+0x60/0x87 >> [ 823.172146] [<c10f0e0f>] vfs_write+0x9c/0x189 >> [ 823.172146] [<c10f0fc6>] SyS_write+0x49/0x81 >> [ 823.172146] [<c14c14bb>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x32 >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] -> #0 (sb_internal){.+.+.+}: >> [ 823.172146] [<c106e972>] validate_chain.isra.35+0xfc7/0xff4 >> [ 823.172146] [<c1070a11>] __lock_acquire+0x345/0xa11 >> [ 823.172146] [<c1071c45>] lock_acquire+0x88/0x17e >> [ 823.172146] [<c10f36eb>] __sb_start_write+0xad/0x177 >> [ 823.172146] [<c11c5e60>] xfs_trans_alloc+0x1f/0x35 >> [ 823.172146] [<c120a823>] xfs_inactive+0x129/0x4a3 >> [ 823.172146] [<c11c280d>] xfs_fs_evict_inode+0x6c/0x114 >> [ 823.172146] [<c1106678>] evict+0x8e/0x15d >> [ 823.172146] [<c1107126>] iput+0xc4/0x138 >> [ 823.172146] [<c1103504>] dput+0x1b2/0x257 >> [ 823.172146] [<c10f1a30>] __fput+0x140/0x1eb >> [ 823.172146] [<c10f1b0f>] ____fput+0xd/0xf >> [ 823.172146] [<c1048477>] task_work_run+0x67/0x90 >> [ 823.172146] [<c1001ea5>] do_notify_resume+0x61/0x63 >> [ 823.172146] [<c14c0cfa>] work_notifysig+0x1f/0x25 >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] other info that might help us debug this: >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] Possible unsafe locking scenario: >> [ 823.172146] >> [ 823.172146] CPU0 CPU1 >> [ 823.172146] ---- ---- >> [ 823.172146] lock(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock); >> [ 823.172146] lock(sb_internal); >> [ 823.172146] lock(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock); >> [ 823.172146] lock(sb_internal); > > Ah, now there's something I missed in all the xfs_inactive > transaction rework - you can't call > xfs_trans_alloc()/xfs-trans_reserve with the XFS_ILOCK_??? held. > It's not the freeze locks you really have to worry about deadlocking > if you do, it's deadlocking against log space that is much more > likely. > > i.e. if you hold the ILOCK, the AIL can't get it to flush the inode > to disk. That means if the inode you hold locked is pinning the tail > of the log and there is no logspace for the transaction you are > about to run, xfs_trans_reserve() will block forever waiting for the > inode to be flushed and the tail of the log to move forward. This > will end up blocking all further reservations and hence deadlock the > filesystem... > > Brian, if you rewrite xfs_inactive in the way that I suggested, this > problem goes away ;) > > Thanks for reporting this, Michael. > Oh, very interesting scenario. Thanks again for catching this, Michael, and for the analysis, Dave. I'll get this cleaned up in the next revision as well. Brian > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs