Re: [PATCH 3/3] tty_lock: Localise the lock
From: Sasha Levin
Date: Fri May 11 2012 - 06:45:09 EST
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 05/07/2012 07:00 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> So whatever your trace is showing, that's not the bug. Something more
>>>> complicated would appear to be afoot.
>>>
>>> Oddly enough, tty != tty->link, but the lockdep warning triggers.
>>>
>>> Any idea why it might happen?
>>
>> I think so, both locks are the same lockdep class. So lockdep thinks it
>> is the same lock. However this is a false positive. I guess we need
>> mutex_lock_nested...
>
> It looks like it causes an actual deadlock, and hung_tasks screams if
> left alone for a bit, so it doesn't look like a lockdep issue.
I've applied the patch that unlocks before hangup, and started seeing
this new warning instead (sorry if output below looks a bit broken,
linux-next has a printk rework in progress):
[ 47.919734] =============================================
[ 47.920013] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
[ 47.920013] 3.4.0-rc6-next-20120511-sasha-00001-g1975c5f #183
Tainted: G W
[ 47.920013] ---------------------------------------------
[ 47.920013] trinity/6825 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 47.920013] (&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff82e9cd02>]
tty_lock+0x72/0x80
[ 47.920013]
but task is already holding lock:
[ 47.920013] (&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff82e9cd02>]
tty_lock+0x72/0x80
[ 47.920013]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 47.920013] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 47.920013] CPU0
[ 47.920013] ----
[ 47.920013] lock(&tty->legacy_mutex);
[ 47.920013] lock(&tty->legacy_mutex);
[ 47.920013]
*** DEADLOCK ***
[ 47.920013] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
[ 47.920013] 2 locks held by trinity/6825:
[ 47.920013] #0: (tty_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81b00837>]
tty_release+0x177/0x4d0
[ 47.920013] #1: (&tty->legacy_mutex){+.+.+.}, at:
[<ffffffff82e9cd02>] tty_lock+0x72/0x80
[ 47.920013]
stack backtrace:
[ 47.920013] Pid: 6825, comm: trinity Tainted: G W
3.4.0-rc6-next-20120511-sasha-00001-g1975c5f #183
[ 47.920013] Call Trace:
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff811440b9>] print_deadlock_bug+0x119/0x140
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff8114622e>] validate_chain+0x5ee/0x790
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff81119eb8>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x108/0x120
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff811467f3>] __lock_acquire+0x423/0x4c0
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff81146a1a>] lock_acquire+0x18a/0x1e0
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e9cd02>] ? tty_lock+0x72/0x80
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e99558>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x518/0x590
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e990a0>] __mutex_lock_common+0x60/0x590
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e9cd02>] ? tty_lock+0x72/0x80
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e9cd02>] ? tty_lock+0x72/0x80
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e99700>] mutex_lock_nested+0x40/0x50
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e9cd02>] tty_lock+0x72/0x80
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e9cd36>] tty_lock_pair+0x26/0x54
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff81b00842>] tty_release+0x182/0x4d0
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff8122cf1a>] __fput+0x11a/0x2c0
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff8122d0d5>] fput+0x15/0x20
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff812293e2>] filp_close+0x82/0xa0
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d6214>] close_files+0x1b4/0x200
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d6060>] ? wait_task_stopped+0x3c0/0x3c0
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d6425>] ? exit_files+0x45/0x60
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d6281>] put_files_struct+0x21/0x180
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e9c6a0>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x30/0x60
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d642d>] exit_files+0x4d/0x60
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d86e2>] do_exit+0x322/0x500
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d8961>] do_group_exit+0xa1/0xe0
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff810d89b2>] sys_exit_group+0x12/0x20
[ 47.920013] [<ffffffff82e9d7f9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
--
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/