On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 23:33 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 14:26 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:27:32 -0400
> > Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is a bandaide to shut up lockdep. I could either figure
> > > out lockdep classes and figure out how to reclassify inotify locks since
> > > I believe Nick is correct when he says inotify watches pin the inode in
> > > core so memory pressure can't evict it.
> >
> > It's pretty sad to degrading the strength of the memory allocation just
> > to squish a lockdep report.
>
> Yeah, I agree, its the wrong thing to do. lockdep annotations really
> aren't that hard -- also, you could also talk me through it.
static struct lock_class_key inotify_mutex_free;
/*
* here the inotify mutex gets moved to a different
* data structure with different locking semantics while
* holding inotify_mutex.
*/
lock_set_class(&foo->inotify_mutex.dep_map, "inotify_mutex_free",
&inotify_mutex_free, 0, _THIS_IP_);
Or when done without holding the inotify_mutex
/*
* here the inotify mutex gets moved to a different
* data structure with different locking semantics.
*/
lockdep_set_class(&foo->inotify_mutex, &inotify_mutex_free);
Is all there should be to it.
--
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
