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 oAO0ul94037585 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:56:48 -0600 Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id CE6C71A03F9 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:58:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VFai2we6oeO3A4BY for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:58:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:58:11 +1100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: XFS reclaim lock order bug Message-ID: <20101124005811.GC3168@amd> References: <20101123121802.GA4785@amd> <20101123211258.GY22876@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101123211258.GY22876@dastard> 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: Nick Piggin , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:12:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 11:18:02PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > IIRC I've reported this before. Perhaps it is a false positive, but even > > so it is still annoying that it triggers and turns off lockdep for > > subsequent debugging. > > > > Any chance it can get fixed or properly annotated? > > It is supposed to be handled by the re-initialisation of the > ip->i_iolock in ->evict_inode (xfs_fs_evict_inode). An inode found > in the reclaim state must have passed through this reinitialisation, > so from a lockdep perspective the iolock in the vfs path is a > different context to the iolock in the reclaim path. That fixed all > the non-reclaim state related lockdep false positives, so Perhaps > there is an issue with the lockdep reclaim state checking that does > not interact well with re-initialised lock contexts? Hmm. I suppose that should work. So xfs_reclaim_inode can only call xfs_ilock _after_ the Linux inode has gone through ->evict_inode call? If so, then let's ask the lockdep people. Thanks, Nick _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs