Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...

[Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:12:23PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:12:59PM +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>>> On 2.6.27-rc4 with various debug options enabled, lockdep claims lock
>>> ordering issues with XFS [1] - easiest reproducer is just running
>>> xfs_fsr. Mount options I was using were
>>> 'nobarrier,noatime,nodiratime'.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>   Daniel
>>>
>>> --- [1]
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>> 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> xfs_fsr/5763 is trying to acquire lock:
>>>  (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
>>>
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>>  (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>]
>>> xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
>>
>> False positive. We do:
>>
>> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
>
> Why not just change the above line to two lines:
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);

Yeah, that'd work, but it implllies that we no longer allow
xfs_lock_two_inodes() to take both inode locks at once. It
would need a comment blaming^Wexplaining why lockdep requires
us to do this, and then debug code in xfs_lock_two_inodes() to
catch this when someone makes this mistake again in the future.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com