xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend - Kernel

This is a discussion on xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend - Kernel ; I'm getting this: ================================================ [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ] ------------------------------------------------ xfs_io/18796 is leaving the kernel with locks still held! 1 lock held by xfs_io/18796: #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){----}, at: [ ] get_super+0x42/0x87 when I suspend, possibly during ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend

  1. xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend

    I'm getting this:

    ================================================
    [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
    ------------------------------------------------
    xfs_io/18796 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
    1 lock held by xfs_io/18796:
    #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){----}, at: [] get_super+0x42/0x87

    when I suspend, possibly during an xfs-freeze. There don't seem to be any ill-effects.

    Thanks,
    J

    --
    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/

  2. Re: xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend

    On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:54AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    > I'm getting this:
    >
    > ================================================
    > [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
    > ------------------------------------------------
    > xfs_io/18796 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
    > 1 lock held by xfs_io/18796:
    > #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){----}, at: [] get_super+0x42/0x87
    >
    > when I suspend, possibly during an xfs-freeze. There don't seem to be any
    > ill-effects.


    Yup, both the sb->s_umount and bdev->bd_mount_sem seaphores are held
    across freeze_bdev()/thaw_bdev(), and they are issued via separate
    ioctls generally from separate processes. Not great design, but not
    a bug....

    Cheers,

    Dave.
    --
    Dave Chinner
    Principal Engineer
    SGI Australian Software Group
    --
    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/

  3. Re: xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend

    On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 07:57 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
    > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:54AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    > > I'm getting this:
    > >
    > > ================================================
    > > [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
    > > ------------------------------------------------
    > > xfs_io/18796 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
    > > 1 lock held by xfs_io/18796:
    > > #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){----}, at: [] get_super+0x42/0x87
    > >
    > > when I suspend, possibly during an xfs-freeze. There don't seem to be any
    > > ill-effects.

    >
    > Yup, both the sb->s_umount and bdev->bd_mount_sem seaphores are held
    > across freeze_bdev()/thaw_bdev(), and they are issued via separate
    > ioctls generally from separate processes. Not great design, but not
    > a bug....


    Actually... we do consider that bugs.



    --
    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/

  4. Re: xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend

    On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 15:53 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 07:57 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
    > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:54AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    > > > I'm getting this:
    > > >
    > > > ================================================
    > > > [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
    > > > ------------------------------------------------
    > > > xfs_io/18796 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
    > > > 1 lock held by xfs_io/18796:
    > > > #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){----}, at: [] get_super+0x42/0x87
    > > >
    > > > when I suspend, possibly during an xfs-freeze. There don't seem to be any
    > > > ill-effects.

    > >
    > > Yup, both the sb->s_umount and bdev->bd_mount_sem seaphores are held
    > > across freeze_bdev()/thaw_bdev(), and they are issued via separate
    > > ioctls generally from separate processes. Not great design, but not
    > > a bug....

    >
    > Actually... we do consider that bugs.


    http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/27/135

    Where Linus says:

    Definitely not a sane thing to do. It should use ref-counting and/or a
    single bit to say "busy".

    --
    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/

  5. Re: xfs_io "BUG: lock held when returning to user space!" on suspend

    On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 03:53:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 07:57 +1000, David Chinner wrote:
    > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:54AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
    > > > I'm getting this:
    > > >
    > > > ================================================
    > > > [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
    > > > ------------------------------------------------
    > > > xfs_io/18796 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
    > > > 1 lock held by xfs_io/18796:
    > > > #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){----}, at: [] get_super+0x42/0x87
    > > >
    > > > when I suspend, possibly during an xfs-freeze. There don't seem to be any
    > > > ill-effects.

    > >
    > > Yup, both the sb->s_umount and bdev->bd_mount_sem seaphores are held
    > > across freeze_bdev()/thaw_bdev(), and they are issued via separate
    > > ioctls generally from separate processes. Not great design, but not
    > > a bug....

    >
    > Actually... we do consider that bugs.


    Ok, you're welcome to fix it then. It's way below my care factor
    right now....

    FWIW, I did suggest that this needed fixing before FIFREEZE/FITHAW
    are introduced, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Cheers,

    Dave.
    --
    Dave Chinner
    Principal Engineer
    SGI Australian Software Group
    --
    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/

+ Reply to Thread