From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o4RCJGAU132330 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 07:19:17 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1219D37B448 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 05:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id eJEJHiF9tTKU4m6W for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 05:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 08:21:38 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Re-initialise lockdep context for all inodes in reclaim Message-ID: <20100527122138.GA14632@infradead.org> References: <1274925546-31468-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274925546-31468-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:59:06AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > We re-initialise the lockdep context for inode iolocks when dropping an inode, > but not when we delete an inode. Now that we can reclaim inodes from a shrinker, > we can get get false lockdep warnings about inode iolock inversions during > reclaim of deleted inodes. Hence we need to re-initialise the iolock in the > delete path as well. clear_inode also gets called when we delete an inode, so at least the rationale for this isn't quite right. It seems like we re-acquire new lockdep dependecies between clear_inode and destroy_inode that your shrinker doesn't like. What lockdep report do you see? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs