From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753797Ab3F0RBF (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:01:05 -0400 Received: from dkim1.fusionio.com ([66.114.96.53]:42752 "EHLO dkim1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753630Ab3F0RBB (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:01:01 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1372352460-0421b5021f95c50001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JBacik@fusionio.com Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:00:58 -0400 From: Josef Bacik To: Dave Jones , Chris Mason , Linux Kernel , Subject: Re: btrfs triggered lockdep WARN. Message-ID: <20130627170058.GS4288@localhost.localdomain> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: btrfs triggered lockdep WARN. References: <20130627145824.GA21540@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130627145824.GA21540@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2011-07-01) X-Originating-IP: [10.101.1.160] X-Barracuda-Connect: cas2.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.41] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1372352460 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.181:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.135132 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:58:24AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > Another bug caused by this script. https://github.com/kernelslacker/io-tests/blob/master/setup.sh > > WARNING: at kernel/lockdep.c:708 __lock_acquire+0x183b/0x1b70() > Modules linked in: sctp lec bridge 8021q garp stp mrp fuse dlci tun bnep hidp rfcomm l2tp_ppp l2tp_netlink l2tp_core vmw_vsock_vmci_transport vmw_vmci vsock cmtp kernelcapi nfnetlink ipt_ULOG scsi_transport_iscsi rose phonet rds irda nfc ipx p8023 p8022 netrom af_key can_raw ax25 llc2 af_802154 x25 pppoe caif_socket pppox can_bcm caif ppp_generic slhc crc_ccitt atm appletalk af_rxrpc psnap llc can btrfs kvm_amd kvm snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_intel btusb snd_hda_codec xor bluetooth raid6_pq serio_raw snd_pcm microcode pcspkr libcrc32c zlib_deflate snd_page_alloc snd_timer snd rfkill edac_core soundcore r8169 mii sr_mod cdrom pata_atiixp radeon backlight drm_kms_helper ttm > CPU: 3 PID: 2340684 Comm: rm Not tainted 3.10.0-rc7+ #8 > Hardware name: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. GA-MA78GM-S2H/GA-MA78GM-S2H, BIOS F12a 04/23/2010 > ffffffff819fb83b ffff88010a751aa0 ffffffff816aed7b ffff88010a751ad8 > ffffffff810432b0 0000000000000002 ffffffff8253e3d0 ffff88002e1a9810 > 00017ee5aac67d60 0000000000000000 ffff88010a751ae8 ffffffff8104339a > Call Trace: > [] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b > [] warn_slowpath_common+0x70/0xa0 > [] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 > [] __lock_acquire+0x183b/0x1b70 > [] ? delay_tsc+0x90/0xe0 > [] lock_acquire+0x93/0x1e0 > [] ? btrfs_try_tree_write_lock+0x47/0xc0 [btrfs] > [] _raw_write_lock+0x41/0x80 > [] ? btrfs_try_tree_write_lock+0x47/0xc0 [btrfs] > [] btrfs_try_tree_write_lock+0x47/0xc0 [btrfs] > [] btrfs_search_slot+0x80d/0x950 [btrfs] > [] btrfs_del_inode_ref+0x76/0x3b0 [btrfs] > [] ? release_extent_buffer+0xb9/0xe0 [btrfs] > [] ? free_extent_buffer+0x4f/0xa0 [btrfs] > [] __btrfs_unlink_inode+0x181/0x390 [btrfs] > [] btrfs_unlink_inode+0x27/0x50 [btrfs] > [] btrfs_unlink+0x6d/0xc0 [btrfs] > [] vfs_unlink+0xa0/0x110 > [] do_unlinkat+0x177/0x230 > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x115/0x1e0 > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 > [] ? syscall_trace_enter+0x25/0x290 > [] SyS_unlinkat+0x1b/0x40 > [] tracesys+0xdd/0xe2 > ---[ end trace 9d90045eda25c268 ]--- > > That WARN is.. > > 704 /* > 705 * Huh! same key, different name? Did someone trample > 706 * on some memory? We're most confused. > 707 */ > 708 WARN_ON_ONCE(class->name != lock->name); > > > Most confusing indeed. There is a bugzilla opened for this, could you try the patch that's in the bz and see if you still hit it? https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59061 Thanks, Josef