2.6.20.3 - possible recursive locking detected - in XFS
Hi,
For your information :
Once in a while I see the message below after I've just created a new XFS filesystem, mount it and then start copying data to it.
It doesn't happen every time - if I should try to make a guess at the frequency I'd say about 1 in 30.
What I do is this.
1. boot the server (an IBM x336) via the network
2. log in via ssh
3. load scsi modules
4. create raid1 of two disks
5. fdisk /dev/sda and create partitions
6. mkfs.xfs /dev/sda<some_partition>
7. mount -t xfs /dev/sda<some_partition> /mnt/mountpoint
8. ssh -x [email protected] "tar --create --gzip --one-file-system --file - / 2>/dev/null" | tar --extract --gzip --preserve-permissions --numeric-owner --directory /mnt/mountpoint --file -
since I do the above via a remote ssh session to the net-booted server, I don't usually notice kernel output to the console. But recently I've started looking via dmesg in a second ssh session and I can say for sure that most of the time there's no problem, but when there is, it is the same "recursive locking" dump I get.
If more info is needed, just let me know.
...
Ending clean XFS mount for filesystem: sda4
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.20.3generic #1
---------------------------------------------
xfs_fsr/6117 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<f929422d>] xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0 [xfs]
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<f929422d>] xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0 [xfs]
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by xfs_fsr/6117:
#0: (&inode->i_mutex/1){--..}, at: [<c016d8b5>] lookup_create+0x25/0x90 #1: (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<f929422d>] xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0 [xfs]
stack backtrace: [<c010404a>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30 [<c0104732>] show_trace+0x12/0x20 [<c01047e6>] dump_stack+0x16/0x20 [<c0139311>] __lock_acquire+0xb01/0xdf0 [<c0139670>] lock_acquire+0x70/0x90 [<c0133f8b>] down_write+0x3b/0x60 [<f929422d>] xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0 [xfs] [<f9294e17>] xfs_iget+0x467/0x7b0 [xfs] [<f92aeeb8>] xfs_trans_iget+0x108/0x180 [xfs] [<f92997db>] xfs_ialloc+0xab/0x520 [xfs] [<f92afadc>] xfs_dir_ialloc+0x6c/0x2b0 [xfs] [<f92b82b9>] xfs_mkdir+0x399/0x650 [xfs] [<f92c0d99>] xfs_vn_mknod+0x119/0x2d0 [xfs] [<f92c0f68>] xfs_vn_mkdir+0x18/0x20 [xfs] [<c016ceb8>] vfs_mkdir+0x98/0xe0 [<c016f57e>] sys_mkdirat+0x8e/0xd0 [<c016f5e0>] sys_mkdir+0x20/0x30 [<c0102f7e>] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99 =======================
...
Signature · 1 line
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Quoted 6 lines · Jesper Juhl
Hi,
For your information :
Once in a while I see the message below after I've just created a new XFS filesystem, mount it and then start copying data to it.
.....
Quoted 9 lines
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.20.3generic #1
---------------------------------------------
xfs_fsr/6117 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<f929422d>]xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0[xfs]but task is already holding lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<f929422d>]xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0[xfs]
Known false positive - XFS doesn't have the annotations needed for this yet; we've got a patch that will probably make it's way into 6.5.22 that should fix most of these issues.
Cheers,
Dave.
Signature · 3 lines
Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group
Quoted 17 lines · David Chinner
Quoted 6 lines · Jesper Juhl
Hi,
For your information :
Once in a while I see the message below after I've just created a new XFS filesystem, mount it and then start copying data to it.
.....
Quoted 7 lines
=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.20.3generic #1
---------------------------------------------
xfs_fsr/6117 is trying to acquire lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<f929422d>]xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0[xfs]
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
but task is already holding lock:
(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<f929422d>]xfs_ilock+0x7d/0xa0[xfs]Known false positive - XFS doesn't have the annotations needed for this yet; we've got a patch that will probably make it's way into 6.5.22 that should fix most of these issues.
Ok. Thanks for the feedback.
Signature · 3 lines
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Quoted 5 lines · Jesper Juhl
Quoted 3 lines · David Chinner
Known false positive - XFS doesn't have the annotations needed for this yet; we've got a patch that will probably make it's way into 6.5.22 that should fix most of these issues.
wow... 6.5.22.... do we really have to wait that long? :)
-Eric
Quoted 8 lines · Eric Sandeen
Quoted 5 lines · Jesper Juhl
Quoted 3 lines · David Chinner
Known false positive - XFS doesn't have the annotations needed for this yet; we've got a patch that will probably make it's way into 6.5.22 that should fix most of these issues.
wow... 6.5.22.... do we really have to wait that long? :)
Why wait? If i remember right ( it's about 3 years ago that it had to do with it ), its a quite old patch-version of mother ... IRIX :-)
It's fun to see that your can't hide your roots Dave :-) ...
so now that .21 ( of the Linux 2.6 series ) i wonder, will there be anybody remembering IRIX 6.5.22 when the Linux kernel reaches to that version number? Hey Google, suck this message in and help us remember this question !
Cheers to all friends of Linux und IRIX
Klaus
P.S.: Guess i will have to boot my old Indy at home, arrrggghhh, clock-chip battery will be empty again ... 'll have to reset the MAC ... must recover the lost root password ... oh Lord ( no, not you Steve ... )
Signature · 8 lines
Mit freundlichen Grüssen / best regards Klaus Strebel, Dipl.-Inform. (FH), mailto:[email protected] /"\ \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN X AGAINST HTML MAIL / \