Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760507Ab0GWPvY (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:51:24 -0400 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:38558 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752579Ab0GWPvW (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:51:22 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAGNVSUx5Lc6U/2dsb2JhbACfaHLBfYU2BA Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:51:18 +1000 From: Nick Piggin To: Dave Chinner Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Frank Mayhar , John Stultz Subject: Re: VFS scalability git tree Message-ID: <20100723155118.GB5773@amd> References: <20100722190100.GA22269@amd> <20100723111310.GI32635@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100723111310.GI32635@dastard> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5751 Lines: 131 On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 09:13:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 05:01:00AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > I'm pleased to announce I have a git tree up of my vfs scalability work. > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git > > > > Branch vfs-scale-working > > I've got a couple of patches needed to build XFS - they shrinker > merge left some bad fragments - I'll post them in a minute. This OK cool. > email is for the longest ever lockdep warning I've seen that > occurred on boot. Ah thanks. OK that was one of my attempts to keep sockets out of hidding the vfs as much as possible (lazy inode number evaluation). Not a big problem, but I'll drop the patch for now. I have just got one for you too, btw :) (on vanilla kernel but it is messing up my lockdep stress testing on xfs). Real or false? [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] 2.6.35-rc5-00064-ga9f7f2e #334 ------------------------------------------------------- kswapd0/605 is trying to acquire lock: (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){++++--}, at: [] xfs_ilock+0x7c/0xa0 but task is already holding lock: (&xfs_mount_list_lock){++++.-}, at: [] xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0xc6/0x140 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (&xfs_mount_list_lock){++++.-}: [] lock_acquire+0x5a/0x70 [] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x50 [] try_to_free_buffers+0x43/0xb0 [] xfs_vm_releasepage+0x92/0xe0 [] try_to_release_page+0x2e/0x50 [] shrink_page_list+0x486/0x5a0 [] shrink_inactive_list+0x2ed/0x700 [] shrink_zone+0x3b0/0x460 [] try_to_free_pages+0x241/0x3a0 [] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x4c2/0x6b0 [] alloc_pages_current+0x76/0xf0 [] __page_cache_alloc+0xb/0x10 [] find_or_create_page+0x4a/0xa0 [] _xfs_buf_lookup_pages+0x14c/0x360 [] xfs_buf_get+0x72/0x160 [] xfs_trans_get_buf+0xc8/0xf0 [] xfs_da_do_buf+0x3df/0x6d0 [] xfs_da_get_buf+0x25/0x30 [] xfs_dir2_data_init+0x46/0xe0 [] xfs_dir2_sf_to_block+0xb9/0x5a0 [] xfs_dir2_sf_addname+0x418/0x5c0 [] xfs_dir_createname+0x14c/0x1a0 [] xfs_create+0x449/0x5d0 [] xfs_vn_mknod+0xa2/0x1b0 [] xfs_vn_create+0xb/0x10 [] vfs_create+0x81/0xd0 [] do_last+0x535/0x690 [] do_filp_open+0x21d/0x660 [] do_sys_open+0x64/0x140 [] sys_open+0x1b/0x20 [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b :-> #0 (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){++++--}: [] __lock_acquire+0x1be0/0x1c10 [] lock_acquire+0x5a/0x70 [] down_write_nested+0x4a/0x70 [] xfs_ilock+0x7c/0xa0 [] xfs_reclaim_inode+0x98/0x250 [] xfs_inode_ag_walk+0x74/0x120 [] xfs_inode_ag_iterator+0x83/0xe0 [] xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0xf4/0x140 [] shrink_slab+0x12d/0x190 [] balance_pgdat+0x43d/0x6f0 [] kswapd+0xbe/0x2a0 [] kthread+0x8e/0xa0 [] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 other info that might help us debug this: 2 locks held by kswapd0/605: #0: (shrinker_rwsem){++++..}, at: [] shrink_slab+0x38/0x190 #1: (&xfs_mount_list_lock){++++.-}, at: [] xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0xc6/0x140 stack backtrace: Pid: 605, comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 2.6.35-rc5-00064-ga9f7f2e #334 Call Trace: [] print_circular_bug+0xe9/0xf0 [] __lock_acquire+0x1be0/0x1c10 [] ? __lock_acquire+0x1092/0x1c10 [] lock_acquire+0x5a/0x70 [] ? xfs_ilock+0x7c/0xa0 [] down_write_nested+0x4a/0x70 [] ? xfs_ilock+0x7c/0xa0 [] ? sub_preempt_count+0x95/0xd0 [] xfs_ilock+0x7c/0xa0 [] xfs_reclaim_inode+0x98/0x250 [] xfs_inode_ag_walk+0x74/0x120 [] ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0x0/0x250 [] xfs_inode_ag_iterator+0x83/0xe0 [] ? xfs_reclaim_inode+0x0/0x250 [] xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0xf4/0x140 [] shrink_slab+0x12d/0x190 [] balance_pgdat+0x43d/0x6f0 [] kswapd+0xbe/0x2a0 [] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x40 [] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x3d/0x70 [] ? kswapd+0x0/0x2a0 [] kthread+0x8e/0xa0 [] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 [] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 [] ? kthread+0x0/0xa0 -- 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/