Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:31:09PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> Not sure if I've reported this already (it looks familiar, though I've not managed
> to find it in my sent mail folder).  This is rc8 + a diff to fix the stack usage reports
> I was seeing (diff at http://paste.fedoraproject.org/89854/13210913/raw)
> 
>  ======================================================
>  [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>  3.14.0-rc8+ #153 Not tainted
>  -------------------------------------------------------
>  git/32710 is trying to acquire lock:
>   (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffffc03bd782>] xfs_ilock+0x122/0x250 [xfs]
>  
> but task is already holding lock:
>   (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffffae7b816a>] __do_page_fault+0x14a/0x610
> 
> which lock already depends on the new lock.

filldir on a directory inode vs page fault on regular file. Known
issue, definitely a false positive. We have to change locking
algorithms to avoid such deficiencies of lockdep (a case of "lockdep
considered harmful", perhaps?) so it's not something I'm about to
rush...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs




[Index of Archives]     [Linux XFS Devel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux