xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs lockdep trace after unlink

To: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs lockdep trace after unlink
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:37:42 +1100
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131008212056.GA7467@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20131008212056.GA7467@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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();
        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

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