Hello,
> During testing I had the below trace from lockdep. After some googling seems
> it wasn't reported. The complete trace attached, it's almost 800K uncompressed.
>
> =========================================================
> [ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
> 2.6.31-scst-dbg #3
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> kswapd0/290 just changed the state of lock:
> (jbd_handle){+.+.-.}, at: [<7826a6fa>] journal_start+0xd4/0x13a
> but this lock took another, RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock in the past:
> (&type->s_lock_key){+.+.+.}
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> no locks held by kswapd0/290.
Thanks for the report. If I'm reading the lockdep messages right, it
complains that page reclaim can be run with sb->s_lock held but we also
start a transaction in the page reclaim path and we take sb->s_lock after
starting a transaction in some paths.
The warning seems to be false positive to me since we don't really
acquire sb->s_lock in the reclaim path. It would be nice if we could
get this sorted out but I don't see an easy way out of this...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SuSE CR Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
