Re: 2.6.27-rc6: lockdep warning: iprune_mutex at shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8

[Alexander Beregalov]

2008/9/16 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 03:31:38AM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.27-rc6-00034-gd1c6d2e #3
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> nfsd/1766 is trying to acquire lock:
>>  (iprune_mutex){--..}, at: [<c01743fb>] shrink_icache_memory+0x38/0x1a8
>>
>>  but task is already holding lock:
>>   (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [<c021134f>]
>>   xfs_ilock+0xa2/0xd6
>>
>>
>> I read files through nfs and saw delay for few seconds.
>> System is x86_32, nfs, xfs.
>> The last working kernel is 2.6.27-rc5,
>> I do not know yet is it reproducible or not.
>
> <sigh>
>
> We need a FAQ for this one. It's a false positive.  Google for an
> explanation - I've explained it 4 or 5 times in the past year and
> asked that the lockdep folk invent a special annotation for the
> iprune_mutex (or memory reclaim) because of the way it can cause
> recursion into the filesystem and hence invert lock orders without
> causing deadlocks.....

Hi Dave

Yes, you already explained a similar message to me, but it was a bug,
not false positive.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/29
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/3/315

I will try to bisect.
It is not a OOM case.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/