Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:15:38 +0000
From:      Anindya Mukherjee <anindya49@hotmail.com>
To:        Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Anindya Mukherjee <anindya49@hotmail.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   RE: New Lock Order Reversal in 12.0?
Message-ID:  <BN6PR22MB080260EC2F09C691580561CBB6670@BN6PR22MB0802.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170109215342.GI8460@kduck.kaduk.org>
References:  <BN6PR22MB0802636EB33644849ED4E151B6640@BN6PR22MB0802.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <20170109004717.GE8460@kduck.kaduk.org> <BN6PR22MB08029DEFE472EAC32C9788B3B6640@BN6PR22MB0802.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>, <20170109215342.GI8460@kduck.kaduk.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Good, that makes me feel better :) The system is running fine, so I think y=
ou're right and it's nothing to worry about. Thanks again for your response=
s.

Best,
Anindya
________________________________________
From: Benjamin Kaduk [kaduk@mit.edu]
Sent: January 9, 2017 1:53 PM
To: Anindya Mukherjee
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New Lock Order Reversal in 12.0?

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:31:39AM +0000, Anindya Mukherjee wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for your reply, and yes, I did notice #238. I should say at this p=
oint that I'm a newbie when it comes to kernel code and am trying to learn =
about it (hence current).

Understood.  It's good that you are ready to try!

> The entry you refer to does look a bit like the one I've got, but I'm not=
 totally sure if the same code path is being followed to arrive at this LOR=
. An inode is being created in my case, vs a directory creation (entry + in=
ode probably) in #238, and then a sync is being attempted, which causes loc=
ks to activate in the softdep code. I've read a bit about this from McCusic=
k's book but the details are still fuzzy.
>
> Perhaps you are trying to tell me that it's benign? I know that WITNESS h=
as false positives, an example being #236 where due to shared vs exclusive =
vnode locks required on the two ways to lock bufwait and dirhash a deadlock=
 never happens.

Well, it's hard to say for certain, but there are a few ufs/bufwait/ufs
LORs that are very commonly reported as WITNESS output but have never (IIRC=
)
been identified as causing a deadlock.  So, it seems pretty likely that thi=
s
one is similarly benign -- I, for one, do not plan to put in time trying
to analyze it until there is a hang or deadlock associated with it.

-Ben



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BN6PR22MB080260EC2F09C691580561CBB6670>