[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.27-rc6: lockdep warning: iprune_mutex at shrink_icache_memory+0x

To: "Alexander Beregalov" <a.beregalov@xxxxxxxxx>, rjw@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel-testers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc6: lockdep warning: iprune_mutex at shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8
From: "Alexander Beregalov" <a.beregalov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:35:20 +0400
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ep5QLwtqyZnzry7n2XZvZBGagzNNS9cpevCUqjRHClw=; b=pAVgkRSjGeSpI5V3R7bd3Ra5NxlWgzUVnnIXa+oYmGHT+0ec5QTlOdsxQMVEmv7g9g xodiXCtcVJtrTgqXj+cnFyL3o1wS0fSvusFQFhi7Pgh+2c8YceKKhgOI7Yb/oxM5/o3S vuC9nWNcqlW27pg7+p4Q6vacaIYc4cKvXBogk=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=QQ1eXgPk1cdQ8l27H746UMdLYwBV5MwuBOsMk5TWShVRFFPPYRBOycOduJoh9ybXBR 1lGx2Moq07ssu0ggEQ0Y7/zSYMJBKnm7mQQzEftRn4biXsFvCnlNamxEnH9nPrdsANfo UMHOler52PUupWROTAuqL4AmLp3mppmTLSuWQ=
In-reply-to: <20080916025204.GL5811@disturbed>
References: <20080913233138.GA19576@orion> <20080916025204.GL5811@disturbed>
2008/9/16 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 03:31:38AM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> Hi
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.27-rc6-00034-gd1c6d2e #3
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> nfsd/1766 is trying to acquire lock:
>>  (iprune_mutex){--..}, at: [<c01743fb>] shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8
>>  but task is already holding lock:
>>   (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<c021134f>]
>>   xfs_ilock+0xa2/0xd6
>> I read files through nfs and saw delay for few seconds.
>> System is x86_32, nfs, xfs.
>> The last working kernel is 2.6.27-rc5,
>> I do not know yet is it reproducible or not.
> <sigh>
> We need a FAQ for this one. It's a false positive.  Google for an
> explanation - I've explained it 4 or 5 times in the past year and
> asked that the lockdep folk invent a special annotation for the
> iprune_mutex (or memory reclaim) because of the way it can cause
> recursion into the filesystem and hence invert lock orders without
> causing deadlocks.....

Hi Dave

Yes, you already explained a similar message to me, but it was a bug,
not false positive.

I will try to bisect.
It is not a OOM case.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>