From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: fs: locks: WARNING: CPU: 16 PID: 4296 at fs/locks.c:236 locks_free_lock_context+0x10d/0x240() Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:10:46 -0500 Message-ID: <54B95426.5020509@oracle.com> References: <54B4A909.9060206@oracle.com> <20150113164441.5b210f48@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <54B5A145.6060108@oracle.com> <20150114092705.39bd4881@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <54B6FF69.3080705@oracle.com> <20150115152247.5e660000@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <54B920BB.3010205@oracle.com> <20150116094028.4ffd675f@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: LKML , linux-fsdevel To: Jeff Layton Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150116094028.4ffd675f@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 01/16/2015 09:40 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:31:23 -0500 > Sasha Levin wrote: > >> On 01/15/2015 03:22 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: >>> Ok, I tried to reproduce it with that and several variations but it >>> still doesn't seem to do it for me. Can you try the latest linux-next >>> tree and see if it's still reproducible there? >> >> It's still not in in today's -next, could you send me a patch for testing >> instead? >> > > Seems to be there for me: > > ----------------------[snip]----------------------- > /* > * This function is called on the last close of an open file. > */ > void locks_remove_file(struct file *filp) > { > /* ensure that we see any assignment of i_flctx */ > smp_rmb(); > > /* remove any OFD locks */ > locks_remove_posix(filp, filp); > ----------------------[snip]----------------------- > > That's actually the right place to put the barrier, I think. We just > need to ensure that this function sees any assignment to i_flctx that > occurred before this point. By the time we're here, we shouldn't be > getting any new locks that matter to this close since the fcheck call > should fail on any new requests. > > If that works, then I'll probably make some other changes to the set > and re-post it next week. > > Many thanks for helping me test this! You're right, I somehow missed that. But it doesn't fix the issue, I still see it happening, but it seems to be less frequent(?). Thanks, Sasha