Re: XFS reclaim lock order bug

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 18:08 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > +static struct lock_class_key xfs_dead_inode;
> > +
> >  STATIC void
> >  xfs_fs_evict_inode(
> >       struct inode            *inode)
> > @@ -1118,6 +1120,8 @@ xfs_fs_evict_inode(
> >        */
> >       ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_iolock.mr_lock));
> >       mrlock_init(&ip->i_iolock, MRLOCK_BARRIER, "xfsio", ip->i_ino);
> > +     lockdep_set_class_and_name(&ip->i_iolock->mr_lock, &xfs_dead_inode, 
> > +                     "xfd_dead_inode");
> >  
> >       xfs_inactive(ip);
> >  }
> 
> With this change, I assume the mrlock_init can go? (it would be nice
> to have a wrapper to allocate the class by itself)


mrlock_init() does allocate a class (well rwsem_init, really), but sets
the name to a stringified version of the lock argument.

The lockdep_set_class*() interface is only guaranteed to work on a
freshly initialized lock structure -- which in this case is a bit of a
waste, but for debugging purposes would allow setting a clearer name.

Alternatively, you can write the code like:

  xfs_inode_t	dead_ip = XFS_I(inode);

  mrlock_init(&dead_ip->i_iolock, ...);

In which case its also obvious, as that would result in:

   (&(&dead_ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock)

as opposed to:

   (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock)


_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs