From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: shared/298 lockdep splat?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 16:04:21 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170926070421.GP5994@X58A-UD3R> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170926035149.GO10955@dastard>
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:51:49PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:47:14PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 08:22:56AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Peter, this is the sort of false positive I mentioned were likely to
> > > occur without some serious work to annotate the IO stack to prevent
> > > them. We can nest multiple layers of IO completions and locking in
> > > the IO stack via things like loop and RAID devices. They can be
> > > nested to arbitrary depths, too (e.g. loop on fs on loop on fs on
> > > dm-raid on n * (loop on fs) on bdev) so this new completion lockdep
> > > checking is going to be a source of false positives until there is
> > > an effective (and simple!) way of providing context based completion
> > > annotations to avoid them...
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > It looks caused by that &ret.event in submit_bio_wait() is initialized
> > with the same class for all layers. I mean that completion variables in
> > different layers should be initialized with different classes, as you do
> > for typical locks in xfs.
>
> Except that submit_bio_wait() is generic block layer functionality
> and can be used by anyone. Whatever solution you decide on, it has
> to be generic. And keep in mind that any code that submits a bio
> themselves and waits on a completion event from the bio is going to
> have to do their own annotations, which makes this a real PITA.
Right. Agree. Let me think it more. As you said, it should be generic.
> > I am not sure if I understand how xfs works correctly. Right? If yes,
> > how can we distinguish between independent 'bio's in submit_bio_wait()?
> > You or I can make it work with the answer. No?
>
> Has nothing to do with XFS - it has no clue where it sits in the
> block device stack and has no business screwing with bio internals
> and stack layering to handle issues with stacked block devices....
Ok. Thank you for replying.
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-26 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20170920211042.GH7112@magnolia>
2017-09-20 22:22 ` shared/298 lockdep splat? Dave Chinner
2017-09-21 8:47 ` Byungchul Park
2017-09-26 3:51 ` Dave Chinner
2017-09-26 7:04 ` Byungchul Park [this message]
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=20170926070421.GP5994@X58A-UD3R \
--to=byungchul.park@lge.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=kernel-team@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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