From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:42:37 +0200 Message-ID: <20150713224237.GA17003@redhat.com> References: <20150713212536.GA13855@redhat.com> <20150713222309.GM3902@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Al Viro , Jan Kara , Linus Torvalds , Paul McKenney , Peter Zijlstra , Daniel Wagner , Davidlohr Bueso , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Chinner Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150713222309.GM3902@dastard> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 07/14, Dave Chinner wrote: > > [ Please cc linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org on filesystem > infrastructure changes! ] OK, will do. > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:25:36PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > - sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with > > percpu_rw_semaphore's internals. > > > > Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c. > > - try compiling XFS, watch it break on freeze lockdep > annotations Thanks a lot! I see. Still trivial, xfs can use the same helpers rather the abuse lockdep directly. > > - Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need > > how to test. > > xfstests has many freeze related stress tests. IIRC, generic/068 is > the test that historically causes the most problems for freeze > infrastructure changes. You'll also need to test at least ext4, XFS > and btrfs, because they all stress the freeze code differently. > Testing XFS, in particular, is a good idea because it has several > custom freeze tests that aren't run on any other filesystem type. Thanks again. Do you see something fundamentally wrong with this change? Oleg.