From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q1PJopvl172052 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:50:51 -0600 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:50:56 -0600 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: only take the ILOCK in xfs_reclaim_inode() Message-ID: <20120225195056.GG7762@sgi.com> References: <1329429660.16207.19.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1329429660.16207.19.camel@doink> 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: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 04:01:00PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > At the end of xfs_reclaim_inode(), the inode is locked in order to > we wait for a possible concurrent lookup to complete before the > inode is freed. This synchronization step was taking both the ILOCK > and the IOLOCK, but the latter was causing lockdep to produce > reports of the possibility of deadlock. > > It turns out that there's no need to acquire the IOLOCK at this > point anyway. It may have been required in some earlier version of > the code, but there should be no need to take the IOLOCK in > xfs_iget(), so there's no (longer) any need to get it here for > synchronization. Add an assertion in xfs_iget() as a reminder > of this assumption. > > Dave Chinner diagnosed this on IRC, and Christoph Hellwig suggested > no longer including the IOLOCK. I just put together the patch. > > Signed-off-by: Alex Elder Looks good. Reviewed-by: Ben Myers _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs