From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: hfsplus_unlink...hfsplus_block_free: lockdep warning
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:15:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1204211750.12120.2.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tkrat.9bcd69644c113f6d@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 16:07 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got this with 2.6.25-rc3 when doing an rm -rf on a HFS+ filesystem:
>
>
> [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> 2.6.25-rc3 #6
> ---------------------------------------------
> rm/7564 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209 [hfsplus]
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80284f1c>] vfs_unlink+0x41/0xb7
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 2 locks held by rm/7564:
> #0: (&type->i_mutex_dir_key#5/1){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80286cac>] do_unlinkat+0x6c/0x154
> #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#8){--..}, at: [<ffffffff80284f1c>] vfs_unlink+0x41/0xb7
>
> stack backtrace:
> Pid: 7564, comm: rm Not tainted 2.6.25-rc3 #6
>
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff802497bb>] __lock_acquire+0x849/0xbd5
> [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209
> [<ffffffff80249efd>] lock_acquire+0x51/0x6c
> [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209
> [<ffffffff80246b71>] debug_mutex_lock_common+0x16/0x23
> [<ffffffff80418eb0>] mutex_lock_nested+0xd9/0x268
> [<ffffffff880fc4ba>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_block_free+0x57/0x209
> [<ffffffff880f647f>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_free_extents+0x54/0x9b
> [<ffffffff880f6a92>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_file_truncate+0xa4/0x2ce
> [<ffffffff880f52de>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_delete_inode+0x57/0x5d
> [<ffffffff880f77e6>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_unlink+0xd0/0x158
> [<ffffffff80284f36>] vfs_unlink+0x5b/0xb7
> [<ffffffff80286cf1>] do_unlinkat+0xb1/0x154
> [<ffffffff80419e4c>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x3a
> [<ffffffff80248b03>] trace_hardirqs_on+0xf3/0x117
> [<ffffffff80419e4c>] trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x35/0x3a
> [<ffffffff880fb4a5>] :hfsplus:hfsplus_uni2asc+0x251/0x29f
> [<ffffffff8020b0bb>] system_call_after_swapgs+0x7b/0x80
>
>
> Is this merely a case for annotation?
Being utterly clueless on HFS, and not having had a look yet, I'd say
its genuine. Esp. since the i_mutex lock class is per filesystem type.
So HFS has internal lock ordering problems, its not interaction with
another filesystem - like we used to have with ext vs the pseudo
filesystems.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-28 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-28 15:07 Stefan Richter
2008-02-28 15:15 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2008-02-28 16:44 ` Roman Zippel
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=1204211750.12120.2.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/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®