-
Peter Zijlstra authored
Li Zefan said: Thread 1: for ((; ;)) { mount -t cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 cat /mnt/cpus > /dev/null 2>&1 umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 } Thread 2: for ((; ;)) { mount -t cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1 } (Note: It is irrelevant which cgroup subsys is used.) After a while a lockdep warning showed up: ============================================= [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.28 #479 --------------------------------------------- mount/13554 is trying to acquire lock: (&type->s_umount_key#19){--..}, at: [<c049d888>] sget+0x5e/0x321 but task is already holding lock: (&type->s_umount_key#19){--..}, at: [<c049da0c>] sget+0x1e2/0x321 other info that might help us debug this: 1 lock held by mount/13554: #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){--..}, at: [<c049da0c>] sget+0x1e2/0x321 stack backtrace: Pid: 13554, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.28-mc #479 Call Trace: [<c044ad2e>] validate_chain+0x4c6/0xbbd [<c044ba9b>] __lock_acquire+0x676/0x700 [<c044bb82>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a [<c049d888>] ? sget+0x5e/0x321 [<c061b9b8>] down_write+0x34/0x50 [<c049d888>] ? sget+0x5e/0x321 [<c049d888>] sget+0x5e/0x321 [<c045a2e7>] ? cgroup_set_super+0x0/0x3e [<c045959f>] ? cgroup_test_super+0x0/0x2f [<c045bcea>] cgroup_get_sb+0x98/0x2e7 [<c045cfb6>] cpuset_get_sb+0x4a/0x5f [<c049dfa4>] vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b [<c049e02d>] do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf [<c04af4a0>] do_mount+0x5c3/0x61a [<c04addd2>] ? copy_mount_options+0x2c/0x111 [<c04af560>] sys_mount+0x69/0xa0 [<c0403251>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31 The cause is after alloc_super() and then retry, an old entry in list fs_supers is found, so grab_super(old) is called, but both functions hold s_umount lock: struct super_block *sget(...) { ... retry: spin_lock(&sb_lock); if (test) { list_for_each_entry(old, &type->fs_supers, s_instances) { if (!test(old, data)) continue; if (!grab_super(old)) <--- 2nd: down_write(&old->s_umount); goto retry; if (s) destroy_super(s); return old; } } if (!s) { spin_unlock(&sb_lock); s = alloc_super(type); <--- 1th: down_write(&s->s_umount) if (!s) return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); goto retry; } ... } It seems like a false positive, and seems like VFS but not cgroup needs to be fixed. Peter said: We can simply put the new s_umount instance in a but lockdep doesn't particularly cares about subclass order. If there's any issue with the callers of sget() assuming the s_umount lock being of sublcass 0, then there is another annotation we can use to fix that, but lets not bother with that if this is sufficient. Addresses http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12673Signed-off-by:
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Tested-by:
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> Reported-by:
Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com> Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> Signed-off-by:
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
ada723dc