From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: "Vladimir B. Savkin" <master@sectorb.msk.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.9-rc2 hangs in posix_locks_deadlock
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:51:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1095634303.7860.122.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040919203619.GA8618@tentacle.sectorb.msk.ru>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 853 bytes --]
På su , 19/09/2004 klokka 13:36, skreiv Vladimir B. Savkin:
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2004 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > P? su , 19/09/2004 klokka 13:05, skreiv Vladimir B. Savkin:
> > > >
> > > > Today I managed to see the output of Alt+SysRq+P on the
> > > > hanged box and write down call trace (from screen, so it is incomplete).
> > > >
> > > > EIP (c015da89) was in function posix_locks_deadlock,
> > > > and the call trace was:
> > > > __posix_lock_file
> > > > fcntl_setlk
Hmm... It appears that it is indeed possible for both leases and flocks
to be on the global "blocked_list", so the appended check is *not*
redundant.
Since flocks in particular do not initialize fl_owner, I suspect that
you might be seeing wierd loops that were previously being avoided due
to the ->fl_pid checks...
Cheers,
Trond
[-- Attachment #2: fix_posix_locks_deadlock.dif --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1163 bytes --]
[PATCH] fix posix_locks_deadlock().
"blocked_list" may contain both leases and flock locks. Since the latter in
particular do not initialize the fl_owner field, we have to beware not to
call posix_same_owner() on them.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
---
locks.c | 7 +++----
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.9-rc2-up/fs/locks.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.9-rc2-up.orig/fs/locks.c 2004-09-19 13:55:33.680258334 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.9-rc2-up/fs/locks.c 2004-09-19 15:37:32.595634679 -0700
@@ -634,14 +634,13 @@
int posix_locks_deadlock(struct file_lock *caller_fl,
struct file_lock *block_fl)
{
- struct list_head *tmp;
+ struct file_lock *fl;
next_task:
if (posix_same_owner(caller_fl, block_fl))
return 1;
- list_for_each(tmp, &blocked_list) {
- struct file_lock *fl = list_entry(tmp, struct file_lock, fl_link);
- if (posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
+ list_for_each_entry(fl, &blocked_list, fl_link) {
+ if (IS_POSIX(fl) && posix_same_owner(fl, block_fl)) {
fl = fl->fl_next;
block_fl = fl;
goto next_task;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-19 22:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-19 16:03 Vladimir B. Savkin
2004-09-19 20:05 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2004-09-19 20:32 ` Trond Myklebust
2004-09-19 20:36 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2004-09-19 22:51 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2004-09-20 11:47 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2004-10-30 10:39 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1095634303.7860.122.camel@lade.trondhjem.org \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=master@sectorb.msk.ru \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®