xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] [Bug 778] New: Possible bug in 2.6.25 xfs xfs_ilock code?

To: xfs-master@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [xfs-masters] [Bug 778] New: Possible bug in 2.6.25 xfs xfs_ilock code?
From: bugzilla-daemon@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 14:44:09 -0700
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=778

           Summary: Possible bug in 2.6.25 xfs xfs_ilock code?
           Product: Linux XFS
           Version: Current
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: major
          Priority: P2
         Component: XFS kernel code
        AssignedTo: xfs-master@xxxxxxxxxxx
        ReportedBy: thlarsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Seen this lately on all Fedora 9 (Yes, rawhide) kernels.  SGI bug?

=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.25-0.101.rc4.git3.fc9 #1
-------------------------------------------------------
my_print_defaul/3398 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<ffffffff812a3c5f>] do_page_fault+0x41d/0x8b9

but task is already holding lock:
 (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<ffffffff8804d920>] xfs_ilock
+0x50/0x91 [xfs]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}:
       [<ffffffff81054ba0>] __lock_acquire+0xbd3/0xd63
       [<ffffffff81054d8e>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78
       [<ffffffff8104b10e>] down_write_nested+0x44/0x74
       [<ffffffff8804d8f7>] xfs_ilock+0x27/0x91 [xfs]
       [<ffffffff88068d5a>] xfs_free_eofblocks+0x11c/0x20a [xfs]
       [<ffffffff8806977e>] xfs_release+0x178/0x189 [xfs]
       [<ffffffff8806fd18>] xfs_file_release+0x10/0x14 [xfs]
       [<ffffffff810abc8f>] __fput+0xca/0x18a
       [<ffffffff810abd63>] fput+0x14/0x16
       [<ffffffff81090310>] remove_vma+0x4f/0x77
       [<ffffffff810917d2>] do_munmap+0x2a1/0x2c3
       [<ffffffff81091834>] sys_munmap+0x40/0x59
       [<ffffffff8100c02b>] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80
       [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
       [<ffffffff81054aa3>] __lock_acquire+0xad6/0xd63
       [<ffffffff81054d8e>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78
       [<ffffffff812a00f6>] down_read+0x40/0x6d
       [<ffffffff812a3c5f>] do_page_fault+0x41d/0x8b9
       [<ffffffff812a1bad>] error_exit+0x0/0xa9
       [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

other info that might help us debug this:

1 lock held by my_print_defaul/3398:
 #0:  (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<ffffffff8804d920>] xfs_ilock
+0x50/0x91 [xfs]

stack backtrace:
Pid: 3398, comm: my_print_defaul Not tainted 2.6.25-0.101.rc4.git3.fc9 #1

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff81053d32>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x70/0x7b
 [<ffffffff81054aa3>] __lock_acquire+0xad6/0xd63
 [<ffffffff81054d8e>] lock_acquire+0x5e/0x78
 [<ffffffff812a3c5f>] ? do_page_fault+0x41d/0x8b9
 [<ffffffff812a00f6>] down_read+0x40/0x6d
 [<ffffffff812a3c5f>] do_page_fault+0x41d/0x8b9
 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d
 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d
 [<ffffffff810bc593>] ? __d_lookup+0x153/0x17d
 [<ffffffff81051eed>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0x1e/0x108
 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d
 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d
 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d
 [<ffffffff812a1bad>] error_exit+0x0/0xa9
 [<ffffffff8107d070>] ? file_read_actor+0x36/0x13e
 [<ffffffff8107f46a>] ? generic_file_aio_read+0x2b5/0x540
 [<ffffffff8807357d>] ? :xfs:xfs_read+0x18c/0x1ff
 [<ffffffff8806fc9b>] ? :xfs:xfs_file_aio_read+0x51/0x53
 [<ffffffff810aaa74>] ? do_sync_read+0xe7/0x12d
 [<ffffffff8105460f>] ? __lock_acquire+0x642/0xd63
 [<ffffffff81047df7>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38
 [<ffffffff81012106>] ? native_sched_clock+0x50/0x6d
 [<ffffffff810abadd>] ? fget_light+0xac/0xdb
 [<ffffffff81051eed>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0x1e/0x108
 [<ffffffff8110b22f>] ? security_file_permission+0x11/0x13
 [<ffffffff810ab4b9>] ? vfs_read+0xab/0x154
 [<ffffffff810ab626>] ? sys_read+0x47/0x70
 [<ffffffff8100c1c7>] ? tracesys+0xdc/0xe1


-ToreL (ex-sgi)

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [xfs-masters] [Bug 778] New: Possible bug in 2.6.25 xfs xfs_ilock code?, bugzilla-daemon <=