On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 08:37:42AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:20:56PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I was deleting a kernel tree, when this happened..
> > RCU, or xfs ?
> >
> > BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
>
> Or lockdep?
>
> > turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > Please attach the output of /proc/lock_stat to the bug report
> > CPU: 2 PID: 8109 Comm: rm Not tainted 3.12.0-rc4+ #96
> > ffffffff824bc2e0 ffff880026f416a8 ffffffff8172d798 41e619a2e5098827
> > ffff880026f41768 ffffffff810cc91f 0000000000000002 000010a02977b643
> > ffff880026f416d8 0000000000000212 ffff880026f416f8 ffffffff810c7329
> > Call Trace:
> > [<ffffffff8172d798>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x82
> > [<ffffffff810cc91f>] __lock_acquire+0x1b7f/0x1be0
> > [<ffffffff810c7329>] ? get_lock_stats+0x19/0x60
> > [<ffffffff810c7f5d>] ? lock_release_holdtime.part.29+0x9d/0x160
> > [<ffffffff810cd133>] lock_acquire+0x93/0x200
> > [<ffffffff81097d0a>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x22a/0x350
> > [<ffffffff817373c0>] _raw_spin_lock+0x40/0x80
> > [<ffffffff81097d0a>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x22a/0x350
> > [<ffffffff81097d0a>] try_to_wake_up+0x22a/0x350
> > [<ffffffff81097ea2>] default_wake_function+0x12/0x20
> > [<ffffffff81084c38>] autoremove_wake_function+0x18/0x40
> > [<ffffffff81090083>] ? __wake_up+0x23/0x50
> > [<ffffffff8108eb78>] __wake_up_common+0x58/0x90
> > [<ffffffff81090099>] __wake_up+0x39/0x50
> > [<ffffffff8110dc38>] rcu_report_qs_rsp+0x48/0x70
> > [<ffffffff8110f7d4>] rcu_report_unblock_qs_rnp+0x84/0x90
> > [<ffffffff81117fcf>] ? rcu_read_unlock_special+0x9f/0x4e0
> > [<ffffffff81118264>] rcu_read_unlock_special+0x334/0x4e0
> > [<ffffffff810c720f>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x1f/0xc0
> > [<ffffffff8107f16c>] __rcu_read_unlock+0x8c/0x90
> > [<ffffffffa027084e>] xfs_perag_get+0xde/0x2a0 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa0270775>] ? xfs_perag_get+0x5/0x2a0 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa01f72f6>] _xfs_buf_find+0xd6/0x480 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa01f780a>] xfs_buf_get_map+0x2a/0x260 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa01f8fcc>] xfs_buf_read_map+0x2c/0x200 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa0281019>] xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x4b9/0xa70 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa0245578>] xfs_da_read_buf+0xb8/0x340 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffff810ca84b>] ? mark_held_locks+0xbb/0x140
> > [<ffffffffa024a3b9>] xfs_dir3_block_read+0x39/0x80 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa024a440>] xfs_dir2_block_lookup_int+0x40/0x260 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa024b49d>] xfs_dir2_block_removename+0x3d/0x390 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa022d0da>] ? xfs_bmap_last_offset+0x4a/0xa0 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa024991c>] xfs_dir_removename+0x11c/0x180 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa0262085>] xfs_remove+0x2e5/0x510 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffffa020ab8b>] xfs_vn_unlink+0x4b/0x90 [xfs]
> > [<ffffffff811d4fd0>] vfs_unlink+0x90/0x100
> > [<ffffffff811d51bf>] do_unlinkat+0x17f/0x240
> > [<ffffffff81010b45>] ? syscall_trace_enter+0x145/0x2a0
> > [<ffffffff811d830b>] SyS_unlinkat+0x1b/0x40
> > [<ffffffff817408e4>] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2
>
> It's hard to see what in XFS is causing this. You're reading a
> single block directory, which means we're holding two inode locks
> here, and then we've done a lookup on a radix tree under
> rcu_read_lock(). Hence I can't see how we've overrun the lockdep
> chain depth in the XFS code path. FWIW, it's thrown this warning
> when calling rcu_read_unlock() here:
>
> struct xfs_perag *
> xfs_perag_get(
> struct xfs_mount *mp,
> xfs_agnumber_t agno)
> {
> struct xfs_perag *pag;
> int ref = 0;
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> pag = radix_tree_lookup(&mp->m_perag_tree, agno);
> if (pag) {
> ASSERT(atomic_read(&pag->pag_ref) >= 0);
> ref = atomic_inc_return(&pag->pag_ref);
> }
> >>>>>> rcu_read_unlock();
Would xfs be holding one of the scheduler's rq or pi locks at this
point? That could result in deadlock.
But I doubt that this is the problem, unless radix_tree_lookup() grabs
one and returns with it held. Otherwise, you have interrupts disabled
throughout the RCU read-side critical section, and thus are guaranteed
to take the lockless fastpath through rcu_read_unlock(). (As opposed
to merely having extremely high probability of taking that fastpath.)
Thanx, Paul
> trace_xfs_perag_get(mp, agno, ref, _RET_IP_);
> return pag;
> }
>
> So I'd be looking at RCU or lockdep at this point....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
