From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] xfs: fix spurious spin_is_locked() assert failures on non-smp kernels
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 09:00:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1496840455-65279-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com> (raw)
The 0-day kernel test robot reports assertion failures on
!CONFIG_SMP kernels due to failed spin_is_locked() checks. As it
turns out, spin_is_locked() is hardcoded to return zero on
!CONFIG_SMP kernels and so this function cannot be relied on to
verify spinlock state in this configuration.
To avoid this problem, replace the associated asserts with lockdep
variants that do the right thing regardless of kernel configuration.
Drop the one assert that checks for an unlocked lock as there is no
suitable lockdep variant for that case. This moves the spinlock
checks from XFS debug code to lockdep, but generally provides the
same level of protection.
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
---
Here's another version that uses lockdep calls as suggested by
Christoph.
Brian
v2:
- Use lockdep asserts instead of config check.
- Drop !spin_is_locked() assert from inode initialization.
v1: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-xfs/msg07463.html
fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 +-
fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 5 ++---
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
index 07b77b7..16d6a57 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static inline void
__xfs_buf_ioacct_dec(
struct xfs_buf *bp)
{
- ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&bp->b_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&bp->b_lock);
if (bp->b_state & XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT) {
bp->b_state &= ~XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT;
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
index f61c84f8..990210f 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
@@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ xfs_inode_alloc(
XFS_STATS_INC(mp, vn_active);
ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) == 0);
- ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&ip->i_flags_lock));
ASSERT(!xfs_isiflocked(ip));
ASSERT(ip->i_ino == 0);
@@ -190,7 +189,7 @@ xfs_perag_set_reclaim_tag(
{
struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount;
- ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
if (pag->pag_ici_reclaimable++)
return;
@@ -212,7 +211,7 @@ xfs_perag_clear_reclaim_tag(
{
struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount;
- ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock));
+ lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
if (--pag->pag_ici_reclaimable)
return;
--
2.7.5
next reply other threads:[~2017-06-07 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-07 13:00 Brian Foster [this message]
2017-06-08 7:54 ` [PATCH v2] xfs: fix spurious spin_is_locked() assert failures on non-smp kernels Christoph Hellwig
2017-06-08 15:26 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-06-08 15:38 ` Brian Foster
2017-06-08 15:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1496840455-65279-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).