Carlos Carvalho wrote:
I compiled the kernel with Ingo's CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and got the
below at boot. Is it a problem?
It was a problem - it has since been fixed in 2.6.23.
Patch is attached in case you're interested.
Lock dependency validator: Copyright (c) 2006 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo Molnar
... MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES: 8
... MAX_LOCK_DEPTH: 30
... MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS: 2048
... CLASSHASH_SIZE: 1024
... MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES: 8192
... MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS: 16384
... CHAINHASH_SIZE: 8192
memory used by lock dependency info: 1648 kB
per task-struct memory footprint: 1680 bytes
------------------------
| Locking API testsuite:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[removed]
-------------------------------------------------------
Good, all 218 testcases passed! |
---------------------------------
Further down
md: running: <sdah1><sdag1>
raid1: raid set md3 active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
md: ... autorun DONE.
Filesystem "md1": Disabling barriers, not supported by the underlying device
XFS mounting filesystem md1
Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: md1
VFS: Mounted root (xfs filesystem).
Freeing unused kernel memory: 284k freed
Warning: unable to open an initial console.
Filesystem "md1": Disabling barriers, not supported by the underlying device
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.22.16 #1
-------------------------------------------------------
mount/1558 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/1){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}:
[<ffffffff80249fa6>] __lock_acquire+0xa0f/0xb9f
[<ffffffff8024a50d>] lock_acquire+0x48/0x63
[<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
[<ffffffff8023c909>] down_write_nested+0x38/0x46
[<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
[<ffffffff803132e8>] xfs_iget_core+0x3ef/0x705
[<ffffffff803136a2>] xfs_iget+0xa4/0x14e
[<ffffffff80328364>] xfs_trans_iget+0xb4/0x128
[<ffffffff80316a57>] xfs_ialloc+0x9b/0x4b7
[<ffffffff80249fc9>] __lock_acquire+0xa32/0xb9f
[<ffffffff80328d87>] xfs_dir_ialloc+0x84/0x2cd
[<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
[<ffffffff8023c909>] down_write_nested+0x38/0x46
[<ffffffff8032e307>] xfs_create+0x331/0x65f
[<ffffffff80308163>] xfs_dir2_leaf_lookup+0x1d/0x96
[<ffffffff80338367>] xfs_vn_mknod+0x12f/0x1f2
[<ffffffff8027fb0a>] vfs_create+0x6e/0x9e
[<ffffffff80282af3>] open_namei+0x1f7/0x6a9
[<ffffffff8021843d>] do_page_fault+0x438/0x78f
[<ffffffff8027705a>] do_filp_open+0x1c/0x3d
[<ffffffff8045bf56>] _spin_unlock+0x17/0x20
[<ffffffff80276e3d>] get_unused_fd+0x11c/0x12a
[<ffffffff802770bb>] do_sys_open+0x40/0x7b
[<ffffffff802095be>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
-> #0 (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/1){--..}:
[<ffffffff80248896>] print_circular_bug_header+0xcc/0xd3
[<ffffffff80249ea2>] __lock_acquire+0x90b/0xb9f
[<ffffffff8024a50d>] lock_acquire+0x48/0x63
[<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
[<ffffffff8023c909>] down_write_nested+0x38/0x46
[<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
[<ffffffff8032bd30>] xfs_lock_inodes+0x152/0x16d
[<ffffffff8032e807>] xfs_link+0x1d2/0x3f7
[<ffffffff80249f3f>] __lock_acquire+0x9a8/0xb9f
[<ffffffff80337fe5>] xfs_vn_link+0x3c/0x91
[<ffffffff80248f4a>] mark_held_locks+0x58/0x72
[<ffffffff8045a9b7>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x250/0x266
[<ffffffff80249119>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x115/0x139
[<ffffffff8045a9c2>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x25b/0x266
[<ffffffff8027f88b>] vfs_link+0xe8/0x124
[<ffffffff802822d8>] sys_linkat+0xcd/0x129
[<ffffffff8045baaf>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x37
[<ffffffff80249119>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x115/0x139
[<ffffffff8045baaf>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x37
[<ffffffff802095be>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
[<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
3 locks held by mount/1558:
#0: (&inode->i_mutex/1){--..}, at: [<ffffffff802800f5>] lookup_create+0x23/0x8
5
#1: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [<ffffffff8027f878>] vfs_link+0xd5/0x124
#2: (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0
x8d
stack backtrace:
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff80248612>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x69/0x72
[<ffffffff80248896>] print_circular_bug_header+0xcc/0xd3
[<ffffffff80249ea2>] __lock_acquire+0x90b/0xb9f
[<ffffffff8024a50d>] lock_acquire+0x48/0x63
[<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
[<ffffffff8023c909>] down_write_nested+0x38/0x46
[<ffffffff80312805>] xfs_ilock+0x63/0x8d
[<ffffffff8032bd30>] xfs_lock_inodes+0x152/0x16d
[<ffffffff8032e807>] xfs_link+0x1d2/0x3f7
[<ffffffff80249f3f>] __lock_acquire+0x9a8/0xb9f
[<ffffffff80337fe5>] xfs_vn_link+0x3c/0x91
[<ffffffff80248f4a>] mark_held_locks+0x58/0x72
[<ffffffff8045a9b7>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x250/0x266
[<ffffffff80249119>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x115/0x139
[<ffffffff8045a9c2>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x25b/0x266
[<ffffffff8027f88b>] vfs_link+0xe8/0x124
[<ffffffff802822d8>] sys_linkat+0xcd/0x129
[<ffffffff8045baaf>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x37
[<ffffffff80249119>] trace_hardirqs_on+0x115/0x139
[<ffffffff8045baaf>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x37
[<ffffffff802095be>] system_call+0x7e/0x83
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
commit 0f1145cc18e970ebe37da114fc34c297f135e062
Author: David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri Jun 29 17:26:09 2007 +1000
[XFS] Fix lockdep annotations for xfs_lock_inodes
SGI-PV: 967035
SGI-Modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:29026a
Signed-off-by: David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Tim Shimmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
index d418eee..012dfd4 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
@@ -415,19 +415,22 @@ xfs_iflags_test(xfs_inode_t *ip, unsigne
* gets a lockdep subclass of 1 and the second lock will have a lockdep
* subclass of 0.
*
- * XFS_I[O]LOCK_INUMORDER - for locking several inodes at the some time
+ * XFS_LOCK_INUMORDER - for locking several inodes at the some time
* with xfs_lock_inodes(). This flag is used as the starting subclass
* and each subsequent lock acquired will increment the subclass by one.
* So the first lock acquired will have a lockdep subclass of 2, the
- * second lock will have a lockdep subclass of 3, and so on.
+ * second lock will have a lockdep subclass of 3, and so on. It is
+ * the responsibility of the class builder to shift this to the correct
+ * portion of the lock_mode lockdep mask.
*/
+#define XFS_LOCK_PARENT 1
+#define XFS_LOCK_INUMORDER 2
+
#define XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT 16
-#define XFS_IOLOCK_PARENT (1 << XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT)
-#define XFS_IOLOCK_INUMORDER (2 << XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT)
+#define XFS_IOLOCK_PARENT (XFS_LOCK_PARENT << XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT)
#define XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT 24
-#define XFS_ILOCK_PARENT (1 << XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT)
-#define XFS_ILOCK_INUMORDER (2 << XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT)
+#define XFS_ILOCK_PARENT (XFS_LOCK_PARENT << XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT)
#define XFS_IOLOCK_DEP_MASK 0x00ff0000
#define XFS_ILOCK_DEP_MASK 0xff000000
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
index 60fd0be..79b5227 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
@@ -2224,9 +2224,9 @@ static inline int
xfs_lock_inumorder(int lock_mode, int subclass)
{
if (lock_mode & (XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED|XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL))
- lock_mode |= (subclass + XFS_IOLOCK_INUMORDER) <<
XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT;
+ lock_mode |= (subclass + XFS_LOCK_INUMORDER) <<
XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT;
if (lock_mode & (XFS_ILOCK_SHARED|XFS_ILOCK_EXCL))
- lock_mode |= (subclass + XFS_ILOCK_INUMORDER) <<
XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT;
+ lock_mode |= (subclass + XFS_LOCK_INUMORDER) << XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT;
return lock_mode;
}
