Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jul 2014 10:51:32 +0200 | From | Vlastimil Babka <> | Subject | Re: + 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?
| |