Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753693Ab0BOKab (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:30:31 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:64809 "EHLO mail-pw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752380Ab0BOKa3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:30:29 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=lpiJeAHFCqrBBdugpt9r1nOd/Ux/I3uuD2pb09MZz14HXTz7bR4/6HdsjOV82BkmHf SV10dMLw+pWTZA/FzcpDsv5xSm1oE21n+wY5DLIhmmgNybW9q5QvzgqUTRZEU8l0I6hz RS8DbIK/yyobILIUWnGPvOlYxZejFMdxcqyug= Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:33:00 +0800 From: =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang To: Eric Biederman Cc: John Kacur , LKML , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Serge Hallyn , "David P. Quigley" , James Morris Subject: Re: [BUG]: Possibe recursive locking detected in sysfs Message-ID: <20100215103300.GI12076@hack.private> References: <520f0cf11002110911t3f125649v73062e9851e2cfb3@mail.gmail.com> <520f0cf11002140510w5c57d196n12f8036ea6085c52@mail.gmail.com> <520f0cf11002141254y3f4536a9ta968dbaefbff58f7@mail.gmail.com> <520f0cf11002141822i7c77c58cl2e00305ca6890f90@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1806 Lines: 44 On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:56:45AM -0800, Eric Biederman wrote: >On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 6:22 PM, John Kacur wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Eric Biederman >> wrote: >>>> Sure, are you referring to the patch-set that begins with >>>> "[PATCH 1/6] sysfs: Serialize updates to the vfs inode"? >>> >>> Sorry no. >>> >>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/11/329 >>> >> >> I applied your patch, and yes, it removed the possible recursive >> locking detected message, but everything still froze. >> I don't think I really have any good info from the crash to report. >> Your patch seems to have added the symptom of a huge number of >> BUG: key ffff880126269e40 not in .data! >> BUG: key ffff880136fc03f0 not in .data! > >Those are from dynamic sysfs entries that I have not yet annoted >with sysfs_attr_init, and are generally harmless. If you happen >to see the first one. I would appreciate having the backtrace so I >can see about fixing it. > >With respect to your problem the important point is that lockdep does >not throw a warning and disable itself. Can you verify that? > >Assuming that lockdep has not complained and disabled itself than >my patches are successful at disabling the sysfs lockdep false positives >(except those BUG: key ... not in .data messages). and the lockdep >warnings are just a coincidence in your case. > >I believe the cause of your hang is somewhere else entirely. Perhaps >a driver regression. > Right, we got a real deadlock here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/28/320 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/