Hi,
when stress testing ext3, I've got the following lockdep warning:
=======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.24-rc3-gbea03ae9 #21
-------------------------------------------------------
fsstress/23377 is trying to acquire lock:
(&mm->mmap_sem){----}, at: [<c017865e>] dio_get_page+0x4e/0x165
but task is already holding lock:
(jbd_handle){--..}, at: [<c01c13f6>] journal_start+0xcb/0xf8
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #1 (jbd_handle){--..}:
[<c0130eff>] __lock_acquire+0xa12/0xbd9
[<c01314a9>] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x78
[<c01c1419>] journal_start+0xee/0xf8
[<c01bc22a>] ext3_journal_start_sb+0x48/0x4a
[<c01b79e5>] ext3_dirty_inode+0x27/0x6c
[<c0170449>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x26/0x15d
[<c0168cde>] touch_atime+0xa6/0xac
[<c013b5d1>] generic_file_mmap+0x2d/0x42
[<c014ae94>] mmap_region+0x1e6/0x3b4
[<c014b333>] do_mmap_pgoff+0x1fb/0x253
[<c0106721>] sys_mmap2+0x65/0x83
[<c0102746>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
-> #0 (&mm->mmap_sem){----}:
[<c0130df3>] __lock_acquire+0x906/0xbd9
[<c01314a9>] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x78
[<c0128acf>] down_read+0x3a/0x4c
[<c017865e>] dio_get_page+0x4e/0x165
[<c0179105>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x428/0xad4
[<c01b7773>] ext3_direct_IO+0x102/0x17b
[<c013c6ba>] generic_file_direct_IO+0xe5/0x111
[<c013c73c>] generic_file_direct_write+0x56/0x112
[<c013d054>] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x322/0x452
[<c013d1ea>] generic_file_aio_write+0x66/0xc3
[<c01b38f7>] ext3_file_write+0x27/0x96
[<c0157674>] do_sync_write+0xc5/0x102
[<c0157da0>] vfs_write+0x90/0x10d
[<c0158307>] sys_write+0x3d/0x61
[<c01026be>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
[<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by fsstress/23377:
#0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#4){--..}, at: [<c013d1d3>]
generic_file_aio_write+0x4f/0xc3
#1: (jbd_handle){--..}, at: [<c01c13f6>] journal_start+0xcb/0xf8
stack backtrace:
[<c0103707>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
[<c010409a>] show_trace+0x12/0x14
[<c010418c>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18
[<c012f5e1>] print_circular_bug_tail+0x5f/0x68
[<c0130df3>] __lock_acquire+0x906/0xbd9
[<c01314a9>] lock_acquire+0x5f/0x78
[<c0128acf>] down_read+0x3a/0x4c
[<c017865e>] dio_get_page+0x4e/0x165
[<c0179105>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x428/0xad4
[<c01b7773>] ext3_direct_IO+0x102/0x17b
[<c013c6ba>] generic_file_direct_IO+0xe5/0x111
[<c013c73c>] generic_file_direct_write+0x56/0x112
[<c013d054>] __generic_file_aio_write_nolock+0x322/0x452
[<c013d1ea>] generic_file_aio_write+0x66/0xc3
[<c01b38f7>] ext3_file_write+0x27/0x96
[<c0157674>] do_sync_write+0xc5/0x102
[<c0157da0>] vfs_write+0x90/0x10d
[<c0158307>] sys_write+0x3d/0x61
[<c01026be>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
=======================
The warning seems to be correct - when doing mmap we start a transaction
under mmap_sem, while in direct IO we need to get mmap_sem when the
transaction is started. I could not find what's the right locking order. It
seems to be easier to avoid touch_atime() under mmap_sem but maybe there
are other places where we need to start transaction with mmap_sem so I'm
asking here...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SUSE Labs, CR
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
