Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755152Ab2FCXRM (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:17:12 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:46141 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754862Ab2FCXRL (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jun 2012 19:17:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 00:17:09 +0100 From: Al Viro To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: processes hung after sys_renameat, and 'missing' processes Message-ID: <20120603231709.GP30000@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20120603223617.GB7707@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1064 Lines: 22 > Also, sysrq-w is usually way more interesting than 't' when there are > processes stuck on a mutex. > > Because yes, it looks like you have a boattload of trinity processes > stuck on an inode mutex. Looks like every single one of them is in > 'lock_rename()'. It *shouldn't* be an ABBA deadlock, since lockdep > should have noticed that, but who knows. lock_rename() is a bit of a red herring here - they appear to be all within-directory renames, so it's just a "trying to rename something in a directory that has ->i_mutex held by something else". IOW, something else in there is holding ->i_mutex - something that either hadn't been through lock_rename() at all or has already passed through it and still hadn't got around to unlock_rename(). In either case, suspects won't have lock_rename() in the trace... -- 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/