lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + shmem-fix-faulting-into-a-hole-while-its-punched-take-2.patch added to -mm tree
On 07/11/2014 10:38 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:33:15AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Quoting Hugh from previous mail in this thread:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [ 363.600969] INFO: task trinity-c327:9203 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>>>> [ 363.605359] Not tainted 3.16.0-rc4-next-20140708-sasha-00022-g94c7290-dirty #772
>>>>> [ 363.609730] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>>>> [ 363.615861] trinity-c327 D 000000000000000b 13496 9203 8559 0x10000004
>>>>> [ 363.620284] ffff8800b857bce8 0000000000000002 ffffffff9dc11b10 0000000000000001
>>>>> [ 363.624468] ffff880104860000 ffff8800b857bfd8 00000000001d7740 00000000001d7740
>>>>> [ 363.629118] ffff880104863000 ffff880104860000 ffff8800b857bcd8 ffff8801eaed8868
>>>>> [ 363.633879] Call Trace:
>>>>> [ 363.635442] [<ffffffff9a4dc535>] schedule+0x65/0x70
>>>>> [ 363.638638] [<ffffffff9a4dc948>] schedule_preempt_disabled+0x18/0x30
>>>>> [ 363.642833] [<ffffffff9a4df0a5>] mutex_lock_nested+0x2e5/0x550
>>>>> [ 363.646599] [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] ? shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350
>>>>> [ 363.651319] [<ffffffff9719b721>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
>>>>> [ 363.654683] [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] ? shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350
>>>>> [ 363.658264] [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350
>>>
>>> So it's trying to acquire i_mutex at shmem_fallocate+0x6c...
>>>
>>>>> [ 363.662010] [<ffffffff971bd96e>] ? put_lock_stats.isra.12+0xe/0x30
>>>>> [ 363.665866] [<ffffffff9730c043>] do_fallocate+0x153/0x1d0
>>>>> [ 363.669381] [<ffffffff972b472f>] SyS_madvise+0x33f/0x970
>>>>> [ 363.672906] [<ffffffff9a4e3f13>] tracesys+0xe1/0xe6
>>>>> [ 363.682900] 2 locks held by trinity-c327/9203:
>>>>> [ 363.684928] #0: (sb_writers#12){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffff9730c02d>] do_fallocate+0x13d/0x1d0
>>>>> [ 363.715102] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#16){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff972a4d7c>] shmem_fallocate+0x6c/0x350
>>>
>>> ...but it already holds i_mutex, acquired at shmem_fallocate+0x6c.
>>> Am I reading that correctly?
>>
>> The output looks like mutex #1 is already taken, but actually the process is
>> sleeping when trying to take it. It appears that the output has taken
>> mutex_acquire_nest() action into account, but doesn't distinguish if
>> lock_acquired() already happened or not.
>
> The call trace is very clear on it that its not. I've never found this
> to be a problem in practise. You need to engage your brain anyhow, this
> little bit extra isn't going to make a difference or not.

OK, but what about the case of "Showing all locks held in the system:"
output where you don't have the stacktraces? Wouldn't it be better if that
distinguished locks already taken and locks being taken?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-11 11:41    [W:0.428 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site