Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:35:00 -0400 | Subject | Re: 3.1.0-rc3 -- INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected | From | Josh Boyer <> |
| |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com> wrote: > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 3.1.0-rc3 #2 > ------------------------------------------------------- > dconf-service/1836 is trying to acquire lock: > (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#12){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8116df1a>] > ext4_evict_inode+0x88/0x32b > > but task is already holding lock: > (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff810d4393>] sys_munmap+0x36/0x5b > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #1 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++++}: > [<ffffffff8106933a>] lock_acquire+0x129/0x14e > [<ffffffff810cddbd>] might_fault+0x68/0x8b > [<ffffffff810fcf5e>] filldir+0x6a/0xc2 > [<ffffffff811651a1>] call_filldir+0x91/0xb8 > [<ffffffff811654bf>] ext4_readdir+0x1af/0x510 > [<ffffffff810fd1a4>] vfs_readdir+0x76/0xac > [<ffffffff810fd2b6>] sys_getdents+0x79/0xc9 > [<ffffffff814162fb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#12){+.+.+.}: > [<ffffffff81068b10>] __lock_acquire+0xa5e/0xd52 > [<ffffffff8106933a>] lock_acquire+0x129/0x14e > [<ffffffff8140f1a2>] __mutex_lock_common+0x64/0x413 > [<ffffffff8140f5b0>] mutex_lock_nested+0x16/0x18 > [<ffffffff8116df1a>] ext4_evict_inode+0x88/0x32b > [<ffffffff81102d8a>] evict+0x94/0x14e > [<ffffffff81102fd0>] iput+0x18c/0x195 > [<ffffffff810ffdd4>] dentry_kill+0x11e/0x140 > [<ffffffff8110019b>] dput+0xd4/0xe4 > [<ffffffff810efac3>] fput+0x1a5/0x1bd > [<ffffffff810d3214>] remove_vma+0x37/0x5f > [<ffffffff810d4239>] do_munmap+0x2ed/0x306 > [<ffffffff810d43a1>] sys_munmap+0x44/0x5b > [<ffffffff814162fb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(&mm->mmap_sem); > lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key); > lock(&mm->mmap_sem); > lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key); > > *** DEADLOCK ***
This one was reported yesterday: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/21/163 and we're hoping Ted (or someone else from the ext4 camp) can comment on why ext4_evict_inode is holding i_mutex.
josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |