linux-next: lockdep whinge in cgroup_rmdir
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=1Any ideas?
Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:34 -0500, [email protected]…
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.
Not an SELinux issue. selinux_inode_rmdir() on the stack trace is just left over junk. The vfs doesn't call into the filesystem rmdir code (cgroup_rmdir()) until after the selinux code has already returned. So cgroup people, you might as well pretend that wasn't on the stack trace at all.
-Eric
Quoted 48 lines
The 'W' taint is from the already-reported
kernel/workqueue.cworker_enter_idleissue.[ 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=1Any ideas?
Quoted 6 lines · On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 10:34 -0500, [email protected] 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.
Not an SELinux issue. selinux_inode_rmdir() on the stack trace is just left over junk. The vfs doesn't call into the filesystem rmdir code (cgroup_rmdir()) until after the selinux code has already returned. So cgroup people, you might as well pretend that wasn't on the stack trace at all.
-Eric
Quoted 48 lines
The 'W' taint is from the already-reported
kernel/workqueue.cworker_enter_idleissue.[ 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=1Any ideas?
Quoted 52 lines · On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <[email protected]…
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.cworker_enter_idleissue.[ 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
Quoted 1 line
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?
Quoted 52 lines · On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <[email protected]> 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.cworker_enter_idleissue.[ 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
Quoted 1 line
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?
Quoted 53 lines · Nick Piggin
Quoted 52 lines · On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <[email protected]> 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.cworker_enter_idleissue.[ 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
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Any ideas?
It looks like it is just a missing
parent->childlock order annotation, but mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What doescgroup_clear_directory()look like in mmotm?
It's not from cgroup_clear_directory()..
This should fix it:
=========================
From: Li Zefan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removal
Commit 2fd6b7f5 ("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry lock, which caused a lockdep warning.
--- kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
kernel/cgroup.c +1 -1
@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry) parent = dentry->d_parent;spin_lock (&parent->d_lock); -spin_lock (&dentry->d_lock); +spin_lock_nested (&dentry->d_lock,DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED );list_del_init (&dentry->d_u.d_child);spin_unlock (&dentry->d_lock);spin_unlock (&parent->d_lock);
Signature · 1 line
1.7.3.1
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · Li Zefan
Quoted 3 lines · Nick Piggin
It looks like it is just a missing
parent->childlock order annotation, but mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What doescgroup_clear_directory()look like in mmotm?It's not from
cgroup_clear_directory()..This should fix it:
Yep, thanks!
Quoted 32 lines
=========================
From: Li Zefan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removalCommit
2fd6b7f5("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry lock, which caused a lockdep warning.Reported-by Valdis Kletnieks <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Li Zefan <[email protected]>---
kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)kernel/cgroup.c +1
-2@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry) parent = dentry->d_parent; spin_lock(&parent->d_lock); - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock); + spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED); list_del_init(&dentry->d_u.d_child); spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock); spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock); --1.7.3.1
Quoted 8 lines · Li Zefan
Quoted 3 lines · Nick Piggin
It looks like it is just a missing
parent->childlock order annotation, but mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What doescgroup_clear_directory()look like in mmotm?It's not from
cgroup_clear_directory()..This should fix it:
Yep, thanks!
Quoted 32 lines
=========================
From: Li Zefan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removalCommit
2fd6b7f5("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry lock, which caused a lockdep warning.Reported-by Valdis Kletnieks <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Li Zefan <[email protected]>---
kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)kernel/cgroup.c +1
-2@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry) parent = dentry->d_parent; spin_lock(&parent->d_lock); - spin_lock(&dentry->d_lock); + spin_lock_nested(&dentry->d_lock, DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED); list_del_init(&dentry->d_u.d_child); spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock); spin_unlock(&parent->d_lock); --1.7.3.1
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): AANLkTikEYgsOjVhmuVCM8rzGRrQxRM0FO475=CEBEtxD-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org
Quoted 53 lines · Nick Piggin
Quoted 52 lines · On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:34 AM, <[email protected]…
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.cworker_enter_idleissue.[ 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
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Any ideas?
It looks like it is just a missing
parent->childlock order annotation, but mainline cgroupfs code looks to be OK there. What doescgroup_clear_directory()look like in mmotm?
It's not from cgroup_clear_directory()..
This should fix it:
=========================
From: Li Zefan <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:34:34 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] cgroups: Fix a lockdep warning at cgroup removal
Commit 2fd6b7f5 ("fs: dcache scale subdirs") forgot to annotate a dentry lock, which caused a lockdep warning.
--- kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
kernel/cgroup.c +1 -1
@@ -910,7 +910,7 @@ static void cgroup_d_remove_dir(struct dentry *dentry) parent = dentry->d_parent;spin_lock (&parent->d_lock); -spin_lock (&dentry->d_lock); +spin_lock_nested (&dentry->d_lock,DENTRY_D_LOCK_NESTED );list_del_init (&dentry->d_u.d_child);spin_unlock (&dentry->d_lock);spin_unlock (&parent->d_lock);
Signature · 1 line
1.7.3.1