| Re: linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir [message #41998] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 03:35 |
Nick Piggin
Messages: 35
Registered: March 2006
|
Member |
|
|
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> Seen booting yesterday's linux-next, was not present in 2.6.37-rc7-mmotm1202.
>
> Not sure if it's an selinux or cgroup issue, so I'm throwing it at every
> address I can find for either. This is easily replicatable and happens at
> every boot, so I can test patches if needed. Am willing to bisect it down if
> nobody knows right off the bat what the problem is.
>
> The 'W' taint is from the already-reported kernel/workqueue.c worker_enter_idle issue.
>
> [ 85.100795] systemd[1]: readahead-replay.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
> [ 85.101530]
> [ 85.101531] =============================================
> [ 85.101796] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> [ 85.102002] 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] ---------------------------------------------
> [ 85.102009] systemd/1 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 85.102009] (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 85.102009] 4 locks held by systemd/1:
> [ 85.102009] #0: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fea4d>] do_rmdir+0x7d/0x121
> [ 85.102009] #1: (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#14){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810fd4bc>] vfs_rmdir+0x4a/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] #2: (cgroup_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8107cb84>] cgroup_rmdir+0x461/0x479
> [ 85.102009] #3: (&(&dentry->d_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff8107ca54>] cgroup_rmdir+0x331/0x479
> [ 85.102009]
> [ 85.102009] stack backtrace:
> [ 85.102009] Pid: 1, comm: systemd Tainted: G W 2.6.37-next-20110111 #1
> [ 85.102009] Call Trace:
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff81069f22>] ? __lock_acquire+0x929/0xd4e
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107c6f1>] ? cgroup_clear_directory+0xff/0x131
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106a859>] ? lock_acquire+0x100/0x126
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff815521ef>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x35/0x48
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e401>] ? _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x45
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8107ca5c>] ? cgroup_rmdir+0x339/0x479
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810579cd>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff811e1839>] ? selinux_inode_rmdir+0x15/0x17
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810fd4eb>] ? vfs_rmdir+0x79/0xbe
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff810feaa0>] ? do_rmdir+0xd0/0x121
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100256c>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8106ac79>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x117/0x13b
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8154e201>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8110040b>] ? sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
> [ 85.102009] [<ffffffff8100253b>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> [ 85.268272] systemd[1]: readahead-collect.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1
>
> Any ideas?
It looks like it is just a missing parent->child lock order annotation, but
mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What does
cgroup_clear_directory() look like in mmotm?
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containe rs
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
