On 10/05, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > plus the following warnings:
> >
> > [ 1894.500040] run fstests generic/070 at 2016-10-04 05:03:39
> > [ 1895.076655] =================================
> > [ 1895.077136] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> > [ 1895.077574] 4.8.0 #1 Not tainted
> > [ 1895.077900] ---------------------------------
> > [ 1895.078330] inconsistent {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} -> {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} usage.
> > [ 1895.078993] fsstress/18239 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> > [ 1895.079522] (&xfs_nondir_ilock_class){++++?-}, at: [<ffffffffc049ad45>] xfs_ilock+0x165/0x210 [xfs]
> > [ 1895.080529] {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} state was registered at:
>
> And that is a bug in the lockdep annotations for memory allocation because it
> fails to take into account the current task flags that are set via
> memalloc_noio_save() to prevent vmalloc from doing GFP_KERNEL allocations. i.e.
> in _xfs_buf_map_pages():
OK, I see...
I'll re-test with the following change:
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2867,7 +2867,7 @@ static void __lockdep_trace_alloc(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned long flags)
return;
/* We're only interested __GFP_FS allocations for now */
- if (!(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+ if ((curr->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO) || !(gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
return;
Hmm. This is off-topic and most probably I missed something... but at
first glance we can simplify/improve the reclaim-fs lockdep annotations:
1. add the global "struct lockdep_map reclaim_fs_map"
2. change __lockdep_trace_alloc
- mark_held_locks(curr, RECLAIM_FS);
+ lock_map_acquire(&reclaim_fs_map);
+ lock_map_release(&reclaim_fs_map);
3. turn lockdep_set/clear_current_reclaim_state() into
void lockdep_set_current_reclaim_state(gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)
lock_map_acquire(&reclaim_fs_map);
}
void lockdep_clear_current_reclaim_state(gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
if (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)
lock_map_release(&reclaim_fs_map);
}
and now we can remove task_struct->lockdep_reclaim_gfp and all other
RECLAIM_FS hacks in lockdep.c. Plus we can easily extend this logic to
check more GFP_ flags.
No?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
