mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held!
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:23:10 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130304092310.1d21100c@tlielax.poochiereds.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FA345DA4F4AE44899BD2B03EEEC2FA9286AD113@sacexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:14:23 +0000
"Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 21:57 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The below warning can be triggered each time when mount.nfs is
> > running on 3.9-rc1.
> > 
> > Not sure if freezable_schedule() inside rpc_wait_bit_killable should
> > be changed to schedule() since nfs_clid_init_mutex is held in the path.
> 
> Cc:ing Jeff, who added freezable_schedule(), and applied it to
> rpc_wait_bit_killable.
> 
> So this is occurring when the kernel enters the freeze state?
> Why does it occur only with nfs_clid_init_mutex, and not with all the
> other mutexes that we hold across RPC calls? We hold inode->i_mutex
> across RPC calls all the time when doing renames, unlinks, file
> creation,...
> 

cc'ing Mandeep as well since his patch caused this to start popping up...

We've also gotten some similar lockdep pops in the nfsd code recently.
I responded to an email about it here on Friday, and I'll re-post what
I said there below:

-------------------------[snip]----------------------
Ok, I see...

rpc_wait_bit_killable() calls freezable_schedule(). That calls
freezer_count() which calls try_to_freeze(). try_to_freeze does this
lockdep check now as of commit 6aa9707099.

The assumption seems to be that freezing a thread while holding any
sort of lock is bad. The rationale in that patch seems a bit sketchy to
me though. We can be fairly certain that we're not going to deadlock by
holding these locks, but I guess there could be something I've missed.

Mandeep, can you elaborate on whether there's really a deadlock
scenario here? If not, then is there some way to annotate these locks
so this lockdep pop goes away?
-------------------------[snip]----------------------


> > [   41.387939] =====================================
> > [   41.392913] [ BUG: mount.nfs/643 still has locks held! ]
> > [   41.398559] 3.9.0-rc1+ #1740 Not tainted
> > [   41.402709] -------------------------------------
> > [   41.407714] 1 lock held by mount.nfs/643:
> > [   41.411956]  #0:  (nfs_clid_init_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c0226d6c>]
> > nfs4_discover_server_trunking+0x60/0x1d4
> > [   41.422363]
> > [   41.422363] stack backtrace:
> > [   41.427032] [<c0014dd4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xe0) from
> > [<c04a8300>] (rpc_wait_bit_killable+0x38/0xc8)
> > [   41.437103] [<c04a8300>] (rpc_wait_bit_killable+0x38/0xc8) from
> > [<c054e454>] (__wait_on_bit+0x54/0x9c)
> > [   41.446990] [<c054e454>] (__wait_on_bit+0x54/0x9c) from
> > [<c054e514>] (out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x78/0x84)
> > [   41.457061] [<c054e514>] (out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x78/0x84) from
> > [<c04a8f88>] (__rpc_execute+0x170/0x348)
> > [   41.467407] [<c04a8f88>] (__rpc_execute+0x170/0x348) from
> > [<c04a250c>] (rpc_run_task+0x9c/0xa4)
> > [   41.476715] [<c04a250c>] (rpc_run_task+0x9c/0xa4) from [<c04a265c>]
> > (rpc_call_sync+0x70/0xb0)
> > [   41.485778] [<c04a265c>] (rpc_call_sync+0x70/0xb0) from
> > [<c021af54>] (nfs4_proc_setclientid+0x1a0/0x1c8)
> > [   41.495819] [<c021af54>] (nfs4_proc_setclientid+0x1a0/0x1c8) from
> > [<c0224eb4>] (nfs40_discover_server_trunki
> > ng+0xec/0x148)
> > [   41.507507] [<c0224eb4>]
> > (nfs40_discover_server_trunking+0xec/0x148) from [<c0226da0>]
> > (nfs4_discover_server
> > _trunking+0x94/0x1d4)
> > [   41.519866] [<c0226da0>] (nfs4_discover_server_trunking+0x94/0x1d4)
> > from [<c022c664>] (nfs4_init_client+0x15
> > 0/0x1b0)
> > [   41.531036] [<c022c664>] (nfs4_init_client+0x150/0x1b0) from
> > [<c01fe954>] (nfs_get_client+0x2cc/0x320)
> > [   41.540863] [<c01fe954>] (nfs_get_client+0x2cc/0x320) from
> > [<c022c080>] (nfs4_set_client+0x80/0xb0)
> > [   41.550476] [<c022c080>] (nfs4_set_client+0x80/0xb0) from
> > [<c022cef8>] (nfs4_create_server+0xb0/0x21c)
> > [   41.560333] [<c022cef8>] (nfs4_create_server+0xb0/0x21c) from
> > [<c0227524>] (nfs4_remote_mount+0x28/0x54)
> > [   41.570373] [<c0227524>] (nfs4_remote_mount+0x28/0x54) from
> > [<c0113a8c>] (mount_fs+0x6c/0x160)
> > [   41.579498] [<c0113a8c>] (mount_fs+0x6c/0x160) from [<c012a47c>]
> > (vfs_kern_mount+0x4c/0xc0)
> > [   41.588378] [<c012a47c>] (vfs_kern_mount+0x4c/0xc0) from
> > [<c022734c>] (nfs_do_root_mount+0x74/0x90)
> > [   41.597961] [<c022734c>] (nfs_do_root_mount+0x74/0x90) from
> > [<c0227574>] (nfs4_try_mount+0x24/0x3c)
> > [   41.607513] [<c0227574>] (nfs4_try_mount+0x24/0x3c) from
> > [<c02070f8>] (nfs_fs_mount+0x6dc/0x7a0)
> > [   41.616821] [<c02070f8>] (nfs_fs_mount+0x6dc/0x7a0) from
> > [<c0113a8c>] (mount_fs+0x6c/0x160)
> > [   41.625701] [<c0113a8c>] (mount_fs+0x6c/0x160) from [<c012a47c>]
> > (vfs_kern_mount+0x4c/0xc0)
> > [   41.634582] [<c012a47c>] (vfs_kern_mount+0x4c/0xc0) from
> > [<c012c330>] (do_mount+0x710/0x81c)
> > [   41.643524] [<c012c330>] (do_mount+0x710/0x81c) from [<c012c4c0>]
> > (sys_mount+0x84/0xb8)
> > [   41.652008] [<c012c4c0>] (sys_mount+0x84/0xb8) from [<c000d6c0>]
> > (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x48)
> > [   41.715911] device: '0:28': device_add
> > [   41.720062] PM: Adding info for No Bus:0:28
> > [   41.746887] device: '0:29': device_add
> > [   41.751037] PM: Adding info for No Bus:0:29
> > [   41.780700] device: '0:28': device_unregister
> > [   41.785400] PM: Removing info for No Bus:0:28
> > [   41.790344] device: '0:28': device_create_release
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Ming Lei
> 


-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>

  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-04 14:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-04 13:57 Ming Lei
2013-03-04 14:14 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-04 14:23   ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2013-03-04 19:55     ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-04 20:53       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-04 22:08         ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-05 13:23           ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 17:46             ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-05 17:49               ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-05 19:03                 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 19:09                   ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-05 23:39                     ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 23:47                       ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 18:16                         ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-06 18:53                           ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 21:00                             ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-06 21:24                               ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 21:31                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-06 21:36                                   ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 21:40                                     ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-13 15:17                                       ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-31  0:07                                         ` Paul Walmsley
2013-03-07 11:41                                     ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-07 15:25                                       ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-07 15:55                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 15:59                                         ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-07 16:25                                           ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 16:45                                             ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-07 17:03                                               ` Linus Torvalds
2013-03-07 17:16                                                 ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-07 21:43                                                   ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-08 14:01                                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-03-07 20:55                                             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-03-07 16:00                                         ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 18:17                       ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-03-06 18:40                         ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-06 18:45                           ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06  1:10                   ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-06  1:14                     ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06  1:28                       ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06 12:00                     ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-05 23:11                 ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-03-06  0:02                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2013-03-06  0:30                   ` [PATCH] lockdep: make lock held while freezing check optional Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-07 12:03                     ` Maarten Lankhorst
2013-03-06  0:59                   ` LOCKDEP: 3.9-rc1: mount.nfs/4272 still has locks held! Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-06  1:05                     ` J. Bruce Fields
2013-03-06  1:16                       ` Tejun Heo
2013-03-06  3:11                         ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-06  9:09                           ` Ingo Molnar
2013-03-06 12:06                             ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-06 15:59                               ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-06 18:23                                 ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-06 18:37                                   ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-06 20:15                                     ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-04 14:40   ` Ming Lei
2013-03-04 15:04     ` Jeff Layton
2013-03-04 15:33       ` Ming Lei
2013-03-04 15:53         ` Myklebust, Trond
2013-03-04 20:09           ` Mandeep Singh Baines
2013-03-04 20:10             ` Mandeep Singh Baines

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=20130304092310.1d21100c@tlielax.poochiereds.net \
    --to=jlayton@redhat.com \
    --cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
    --cc=msb@chromium.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®