From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756617AbXD0RMK (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:12:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756615AbXD0RMJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:12:09 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:20622 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756611AbXD0RMD (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:12:03 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=AY4qeo+eFVop1UIfpuQzNpL3vW9LN4uUKE2CSD5DVpIbVFDAaZe3XmGYeAyC0gX7nTzVpJdqNG/b2g5ZD+77a8sZbaJ8FHzCEsxmBa0jCM/xbc4XVxa6GDUsIQ+j8XjqclpYaRHrYNvtRbqjYRjYwcYPOPttr0ycEzkC+UxSsao= Subject: Re: 2.6.21 reiserfs -- cicular locking? From: "Antonino A. Daplas" To: Jeff Mahoney Cc: Jeff Mahoney , Takashi Iwai , Andrew Morton , David Brownell , Linux Kernel list , reiserfs-dev@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <463222F5.7080209@suse.de> References: <200704261640.15068.david-b@pacbell.net> <20070426224408.fd525b46.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4631D9CD.4050106@suse.com> <463213FD.3060401@suse.com> <463222F5.7080209@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:11:54 +0800 Message-Id: <1177693914.4622.1.camel@daplas> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 12:21 -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Jeff Mahoney wrote: > > Takashi Iwai wrote: > >>> At Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:09:01 -0400, > >>> Jeff Mahoney wrote: > >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>>> Hash: SHA1 > >>>> > >>>> Takashi Iwai wrote: > >>>>> At Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:09:03 +0200, > >>>>> I wrote: > >>>>>> I got a similar bug right now at the fresh boot of 2.6.21. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ReiserFS: sda2: found reiserfs format "3.6" with standard journal > >>>>>> ReiserFS: sda2: using ordered data mode > >>>>>> ReiserFS: sda2: journal params: device sda2, size 8192, journal first block 18, max trans len 1024, max batch 900, max commit age 30, max trans age 30 > >>>>>> ReiserFS: sda2: checking transaction log (sda2) > >>>>>> ReiserFS: sda2: Using r5 hash to sort names > >>>>>> ReiserFS: sda2: Removing [3613 1354701 0x0 SD]..done > >>>>>> ReiserFS: sda2: There were 1 uncompleted unlinks/truncates. Completed > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ======================================================= > >>>>>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > >>>>>> 2.6.21-work #1 > >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> mktemp/1459 is trying to acquire lock: > >>>>>> (&REISERFS_I(inode)->xattr_sem){..--}, at: [] reiserfs_cache_default_acl+0x2a/0x9c [reiserfs] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> but task is already holding lock: > >>>>>> (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [] open_namei+0xe2/0x5a2 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> which lock already depends on the new lock. > >>>>> The message disappears when I revert the patch: > >>>>> > >>>>> commit 9b7f375505f5611efb562065b57814b28a81abc3 > >>>>> Author: Jeff Mahoney > >>>>> Date: Mon Apr 23 14:41:17 2007 -0700 > >>>>> > >>>>> reiserfs: fix xattr root locking/refcount bug > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> So, likely a newly introduced bug after rc7... > >>>> I got a message with a trace similar to this from Vladimir before I > >>>> submitted that patch. I'm not sure how to annotate this, since the > >>>> xattr_sem can never be taken in the manner described. Internal inodes > >>>> are protected by I_PRIVATE. > >>> Hm, then maybe my case was just a coincidence. > >>> > >>> FWIW, I can reproduce the deadlock warning at each time I boot > >>> non-patched 2.6.21, and after reverting the patch, it disappeared. > > > > Ok, so I took another look at the report Vladimir sent me. The trace he > > ran into was in the delete inode path, but was still a race between the > > xattr_sem and the inode sem. Since we're locking the xattr root on the > > xattr read path now, this condition arises more freqently, but it's > > really the same one he reported. > > > > I'm using the default openSUSE config, which doesn't enable mutex > > debugging. I'll rebuild with it, and hopefully come up with a way to > > kill the warning. > > I still didn't get the warning, but can you try this and let me know > if it fixes it? I also reported this in another thread. With this patch, I haven't seen the tracing anymore. Tony