1. 02 1月, 2010 1 次提交
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix reiserfs lock <-> i_xattr_sem dependency inversion · 0719d343
      Frederic Weisbecker 提交于
      i_xattr_sem depends on the reiserfs lock. But after we grab
      i_xattr_sem, we may relax/relock the reiserfs lock while waiting
      on a freezed filesystem, creating a dependency inversion between
      the two locks.
      
      In order to avoid the i_xattr_sem -> reiserfs lock dependency, let's
      create a reiserfs_down_read_safe() that acts like
      reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe(): relax the reiserfs lock while grabbing
      another lock to avoid undesired dependencies induced by the
      heivyweight reiserfs lock.
      
      This fixes the following warning:
      
      [  990.005931] =======================================================
      [  990.012373] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
      [  990.013233] 2.6.33-rc1 #1
      [  990.013233] -------------------------------------------------------
      [  990.013233] dbench/1891 is trying to acquire lock:
      [  990.013233]  (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81159505>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] but task is already holding lock:
      [  990.013233]  (&REISERFS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8115899a>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] which lock already depends on the new lock.
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] -> #1 (&REISERFS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem){+.+.+.}:
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81063afc>] __lock_acquire+0xf9c/0x1560
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8106414f>] lock_acquire+0x8f/0xb0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff814ac194>] down_write+0x44/0x80
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115899a>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81158e30>] reiserfs_xattr_set+0xb0/0x150
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115a6aa>] user_set+0x8a/0x90
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115901a>] reiserfs_setxattr+0xaa/0xb0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2596>] __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x36/0xa0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e26bc>] vfs_setxattr+0xbc/0xc0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2780>] setxattr+0xc0/0x150
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e289d>] sys_fsetxattr+0x8d/0xa0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] -> #0 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81063e30>] __lock_acquire+0x12d0/0x1560
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8106414f>] lock_acquire+0x8f/0xb0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff814aba77>] __mutex_lock_common+0x47/0x3b0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff814abebe>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81159505>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff811340e5>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x45/0x180
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81158bb6>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x2a6/0x470
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81158e30>] reiserfs_xattr_set+0xb0/0x150
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115a6aa>] user_set+0x8a/0x90
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff8115901a>] reiserfs_setxattr+0xaa/0xb0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2596>] __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x36/0xa0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e26bc>] vfs_setxattr+0xbc/0xc0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e2780>] setxattr+0xc0/0x150
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff810e289d>] sys_fsetxattr+0x8d/0xa0
      [  990.013233]        [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] other info that might help us debug this:
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] 2 locks held by dbench/1891:
      [  990.013233]  #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#12){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff810e2678>] vfs_setxattr+0x78/0xc0
      [  990.013233]  #1:  (&REISERFS_I(inode)->i_xattr_sem){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8115899a>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
      [  990.013233]
      [  990.013233] stack backtrace:
      [  990.013233] Pid: 1891, comm: dbench Not tainted 2.6.33-rc1 #1
      [  990.013233] Call Trace:
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81061639>] print_circular_bug+0xe9/0xf0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81063e30>] __lock_acquire+0x12d0/0x1560
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115899a>] ? reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8106414f>] lock_acquire+0x8f/0xb0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115899a>] ? reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x8a/0x470
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814aba77>] __mutex_lock_common+0x47/0x3b0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81062592>] ? mark_held_locks+0x72/0xa0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814ab81d>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xbd/0x140
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810628ad>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x14d/0x1a0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814abebe>] mutex_lock_nested+0x3e/0x50
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81159505>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x35/0x50
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff811340e5>] reiserfs_prepare_write+0x45/0x180
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81158bb6>] reiserfs_xattr_set_handle+0x2a6/0x470
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81158e30>] reiserfs_xattr_set+0xb0/0x150
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff814abcb4>] ? __mutex_lock_common+0x284/0x3b0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115a6aa>] user_set+0x8a/0x90
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8115901a>] reiserfs_setxattr+0xaa/0xb0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e2596>] __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0x36/0xa0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e26bc>] vfs_setxattr+0xbc/0xc0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e2780>] setxattr+0xc0/0x150
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81056018>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xb8/0x100
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff8105eded>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xd/0x10
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810560a3>] ? cpu_clock+0x43/0x50
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810c6820>] ? fget+0xb0/0x110
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810c6770>] ? fget+0x0/0x110
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81002ddc>] ? sysret_check+0x27/0x62
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff810e289d>] sys_fsetxattr+0x8d/0xa0
      [  990.013233]  [<ffffffff81002dab>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
      Reported-and-tested-by: NChristian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>
      Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
      Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
      Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
      Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      0719d343
  2. 30 12月, 2009 1 次提交
  3. 17 12月, 2009 1 次提交
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix reiserfs lock <-> inode mutex dependency inversion · 47376ceb
      Frederic Weisbecker 提交于
      The reiserfs lock -> inode mutex dependency gets inverted when we
      relax the lock while walking to the tree.
      
      To fix this, use a specialized version of reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe
      that takes care of mutex subclasses. Then we can grab the inode
      mutex with I_MUTEX_XATTR subclass without any reiserfs lock
      dependency.
      
      This fixes the following report:
      
      [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
      2.6.32-06793-gf4054253-dirty #2
      -------------------------------------------------------
      mv/18566 is trying to acquire lock:
       (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c1110708>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28=
      /0x40
      
      but task is already holding lock:
       (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/3){+.+.+.}, at: [<c111033c>]
      reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x10c/0x380
      
      which lock already depends on the new lock.
      
      the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
      
      -> #1 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/3){+.+.+.}:
             [<c104f723>] validate_chain+0xa23/0xf70
             [<c1050155>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
             [<c105075a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
             [<c134c76f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
             [<c11102b4>] reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x84/0x380
             [<c1110615>] reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
             [<c10ef57f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x8f/0x140
             [<c10a565c>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
             [<c10a574d>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
             [<c10a4667>] iput+0x47/0x50
             [<c109cc0b>] do_unlinkat+0xdb/0x160
             [<c109cca0>] sys_unlink+0x10/0x20
             [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
      
      -> #0 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
             [<c104fc68>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
             [<c1050155>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
             [<c105075a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
             [<c134c76f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
             [<c1110708>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
             [<c1103d6b>] search_by_key+0x1f7b/0x21b0
             [<c10e73ef>] search_by_entry_key+0x1f/0x3b0
             [<c10e77f7>] reiserfs_find_entry+0x77/0x400
             [<c10e81e5>] reiserfs_lookup+0x85/0x130
             [<c109a144>] __lookup_hash+0xb4/0x110
             [<c109b763>] lookup_one_len+0xb3/0x100
             [<c1110350>] reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x120/0x380
             [<c1110615>] reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
             [<c10ef57f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x8f/0x140
             [<c10a565c>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
             [<c10a574d>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
             [<c10a4667>] iput+0x47/0x50
             [<c10a1c4f>] dentry_iput+0x6f/0xf0
             [<c10a1d74>] d_kill+0x24/0x50
             [<c10a396b>] dput+0x5b/0x120
             [<c109ca89>] sys_renameat+0x1b9/0x230
             [<c109cb28>] sys_rename+0x28/0x30
             [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
      
      other info that might help us debug this:
      
      2 locks held by mv/18566:
       #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<c109b6ac>]
      lock_rename+0xcc/0xd0
       #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/3){+.+.+.}, at: [<c111033c>]
      reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x10c/0x380
      
      stack backtrace:
      Pid: 18566, comm: mv Tainted: G         C 2.6.32-06793-gf4054253-dirty #2
      Call Trace:
       [<c134b252>] ? printk+0x18/0x1e
       [<c104e790>] print_circular_bug+0xc0/0xd0
       [<c104fc68>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
       [<c104c8cb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
       [<c1050155>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
       [<c105075a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
       [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c134c76f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
       [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c134b60a>] ? schedule+0x27a/0x440
       [<c1110708>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c1103d6b>] search_by_key+0x1f7b/0x21b0
       [<c1050176>] ? __lock_acquire+0x506/0xa70
       [<c1051267>] ? lock_release_non_nested+0x1e7/0x340
       [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c104e354>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x124/0x170
       [<c104e3ab>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0x10
       [<c1042a55>] ? T.316+0x15/0x1a0
       [<c1042d2d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x9d/0x100
       [<c10e73ef>] search_by_entry_key+0x1f/0x3b0
       [<c134bf2a>] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x9a/0x120
       [<c104e354>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x124/0x170
       [<c10e77f7>] reiserfs_find_entry+0x77/0x400
       [<c10e81e5>] reiserfs_lookup+0x85/0x130
       [<c1042d2d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x9d/0x100
       [<c109a144>] __lookup_hash+0xb4/0x110
       [<c109b763>] lookup_one_len+0xb3/0x100
       [<c1110350>] reiserfs_for_each_xattr+0x120/0x380
       [<c110ffe0>] ? delete_one_xattr+0x0/0x1c0
       [<c1003342>] ? math_error+0x22/0x150
       [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c1110615>] reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
       [<c1110708>] ? reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
       [<c10ef57f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x8f/0x140
       [<c10a561f>] ? generic_delete_inode+0x5f/0x150
       [<c10ef4f0>] ? reiserfs_delete_inode+0x0/0x140
       [<c10a565c>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
       [<c10a574d>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
       [<c10a4667>] iput+0x47/0x50
       [<c10a1c4f>] dentry_iput+0x6f/0xf0
       [<c10a1d74>] d_kill+0x24/0x50
       [<c10a396b>] dput+0x5b/0x120
       [<c109ca89>] sys_renameat+0x1b9/0x230
       [<c1042d2d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0x9d/0x100
       [<c104c8cb>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
       [<c1042dde>] ? cpu_clock+0x4e/0x60
       [<c1350825>] ? do_page_fault+0x155/0x370
       [<c1041816>] ? up_read+0x16/0x30
       [<c1350825>] ? do_page_fault+0x155/0x370
       [<c109cb28>] sys_rename+0x28/0x30
       [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
      Reported-by: NAlexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
      Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
      Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      47376ceb
  4. 14 12月, 2009 2 次提交
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix reiserfs lock and journal lock inversion dependency · cb1c2e51
      Frederic Weisbecker 提交于
      When we were using the bkl, we didn't care about dependencies against
      other locks, but the mutex conversion created new ones, which is why
      we have reiserfs_mutex_lock_safe(), which unlocks the reiserfs lock
      before acquiring another mutex.
      
      But this trick actually fails if we have acquired the reiserfs lock
      recursively, as we try to unlock it to acquire the new mutex without
      inverted dependency, but we eventually only decrease its depth.
      
      This happens in the case of a nested inode creation/deletion.
      Say we have no space left on the device, we create an inode
      and tak the lock but fail to create its entry, then we release the
      inode using iput(), which calls reiserfs_delete_inode() that takes
      the reiserfs lock recursively. The path eventually ends up in
      journal_begin() where we try to take the journal safely but we
      fail because of the reiserfs lock recursion:
      
      [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
      2.6.32-06486-g053fe57a #2
      -------------------------------------------------------
      vi/23454 is trying to acquire lock:
       (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<c110dac4>] do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
      
      but task is already holding lock:
       (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c11106a8>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
      
      which lock already depends on the new lock.
      
      the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
      
      -> #1 (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}:
             [<c104f8f3>] validate_chain+0xa23/0xf70
             [<c1050325>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
             [<c105092a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
             [<c134c78f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
             [<c11106a8>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
             [<c110dacb>] do_journal_begin_r+0x6b/0x2f0
             [<c110ddcf>] journal_begin+0x7f/0x120
             [<c10f76c2>] reiserfs_remount+0x212/0x4d0
             [<c1093997>] do_remount_sb+0x67/0x140
             [<c10a9ca6>] do_mount+0x436/0x6b0
             [<c10a9f86>] sys_mount+0x66/0xa0
             [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
      
      -> #0 (&journal->j_mutex){+.+...}:
             [<c104fe38>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
             [<c1050325>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
             [<c105092a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
             [<c134c78f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
             [<c110dac4>] do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
             [<c110ddcf>] journal_begin+0x7f/0x120
             [<c10ef52f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x9f/0x140
             [<c10a55fc>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
             [<c10a56ed>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
             [<c10a4607>] iput+0x47/0x50
             [<c10e915c>] reiserfs_create+0x16c/0x1c0
             [<c109a9c1>] vfs_create+0xc1/0x130
             [<c109dbec>] do_filp_open+0x81c/0x920
             [<c109004f>] do_sys_open+0x4f/0x110
             [<c1090179>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
             [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
      
      other info that might help us debug this:
      
      2 locks held by vi/23454:
       #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5){+.+.+.}, at: [<c109d64e>]
      do_filp_open+0x27e/0x920
       #1:  (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<c11106a8>]
      reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
      
      stack backtrace:
      Pid: 23454, comm: vi Not tainted 2.6.32-06486-g053fe57a #2
      Call Trace:
       [<c134b202>] ? printk+0x18/0x1e
       [<c104e960>] print_circular_bug+0xc0/0xd0
       [<c104fe38>] validate_chain+0xf68/0xf70
       [<c104ca9b>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
       [<c1050325>] __lock_acquire+0x4e5/0xa70
       [<c105092a>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0
       [<c110dac4>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
       [<c134c78f>] mutex_lock_nested+0x5f/0x2b0
       [<c110dac4>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
       [<c110dac4>] ? do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
       [<c110ff80>] ? delete_one_xattr+0x0/0x1c0
       [<c110dac4>] do_journal_begin_r+0x64/0x2f0
       [<c110ddcf>] journal_begin+0x7f/0x120
       [<c11105b5>] ? reiserfs_delete_xattrs+0x15/0x50
       [<c10ef52f>] reiserfs_delete_inode+0x9f/0x140
       [<c10a55bf>] ? generic_delete_inode+0x5f/0x150
       [<c10ef490>] ? reiserfs_delete_inode+0x0/0x140
       [<c10a55fc>] generic_delete_inode+0x9c/0x150
       [<c10a56ed>] generic_drop_inode+0x3d/0x60
       [<c10a4607>] iput+0x47/0x50
       [<c10e915c>] reiserfs_create+0x16c/0x1c0
       [<c1099a5d>] ? inode_permission+0x7d/0xa0
       [<c109a9c1>] vfs_create+0xc1/0x130
       [<c10e8ff0>] ? reiserfs_create+0x0/0x1c0
       [<c109dbec>] do_filp_open+0x81c/0x920
       [<c104ca9b>] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0xb/0x10
       [<c134dc0d>] ? _spin_unlock+0x1d/0x20
       [<c10a6eea>] ? alloc_fd+0xba/0xf0
       [<c109004f>] do_sys_open+0x4f/0x110
       [<c1090179>] sys_open+0x29/0x40
       [<c1002c50>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
      
      To fix this, use reiserfs_lock_once() from reiserfs_delete_inode()
      which prevents from adding reiserfs lock recursion.
      Reported-by: NAlexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
      Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
      Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      cb1c2e51
    • F
      reiserfs: Fix possible recursive lock · 500f5a0b
      Frederic Weisbecker 提交于
      While allocating the bitmap using vmalloc, we hold the reiserfs lock,
      which makes lockdep later reporting a possible deadlock as we may
      swap out pages to allocate memory and then take the reiserfs lock
      recursively:
      
      inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
      kswapd0/312 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
       (&REISERFS_SB(s)->lock){+.+.?.}, at: [<c11108a8>] reiserfs_write_lock+0x28/0x40
      {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
        [<c104e1c2>] mark_held_locks+0x62/0x90
        [<c104e28a>] lockdep_trace_alloc+0x9a/0xc0
        [<c108e396>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x26/0xf0
        [<c10850ec>] __get_vm_area_node+0x6c/0xf0
        [<c10857de>] __vmalloc_node+0x7e/0xa0
        [<c108597b>] vmalloc+0x2b/0x30
        [<c10e00b9>] reiserfs_init_bitmap_cache+0x39/0x70
        [<c10f8178>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x2e8/0xb90
        [<c1094345>] get_sb_bdev+0x145/0x180
        [<c10f5a11>] get_super_block+0x21/0x30
        [<c10931f0>] vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0xd0
        [<c10932d9>] do_kern_mount+0x39/0xd0
        [<c10a9857>] do_mount+0x2c7/0x6b0
        [<c10a9ca6>] sys_mount+0x66/0xa0
        [<c161589b>] mount_block_root+0xc4/0x245
        [<c1615a75>] mount_root+0x59/0x5f
        [<c1615b8c>] prepare_namespace+0x111/0x14b
        [<c1615269>] kernel_init+0xcf/0xdb
        [<c10031fb>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x1c
      
      This is actually fine for two reasons: we call vmalloc at mount time
      then it's not in the swapping out path. Also the reiserfs lock can be
      acquired recursively, but since its implementation depends on a mutex,
      it's hard and not necessary worth it to teach that to lockdep.
      
      The lock is useless at mount time anyway, at least until we replay the
      journal. But let's remove it from this path later as this needs
      more thinking and is a sensible change.
      
      For now we can just relax the lock around vmalloc,
      Reported-by: NAlexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>
      Signed-off-by: NFrederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
      Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
      Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
      Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      500f5a0b
  5. 07 12月, 2009 1 次提交
    • F
      Merge commit 'v2.6.32' into reiserfs/kill-bkl · 6548698f
      Frederic Weisbecker 提交于
      Merge-reason: The tree was based 2.6.31. It's better to be up to date
      with 2.6.32. Although no conflicting changes were made in between,
      it gives benchmarking results closer to the lastest kernel behaviour.
      6548698f
  6. 03 12月, 2009 15 次提交
  7. 02 12月, 2009 19 次提交