On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 14:48 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 03:03:41PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:12:58AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > It is supposed to be handled by the re-initialisation of the > > > ip->i_iolock in ->evict_inode (xfs_fs_evict_inode). An inode found > > > in the reclaim state must have passed through this reinitialisation, > > > so from a lockdep perspective the iolock in the vfs path is a > > > different context to the iolock in the reclaim path. That fixed all > > > the non-reclaim state related lockdep false positives, so Perhaps > > > there is an issue with the lockdep reclaim state checking that does > > > not interact well with re-initialised lock contexts? > > > > I've been looking through this again, and I think it's indeed not > > enough. We don't just need to re-initialize it, but also set a > > different lockclass for it. > > Doesn't init_rwsem give it a new class? Per call-site, yes it should. > Guys, can you take a quick look at the code Dave is referring to > (xfs_fs_evict_inode), and check that it actually does what he > intends? Right, so this is trying to set a different class from the regular init site, which (/me applies grep) lives in xfs_inode_alloc(), right? Ought to work.. assuming the inode will be fully destroyed and new inodes are always obtained through xfs_inode_alloc() and not reused. > We're getting what seems to be false positives in reclaim inversion > of lockings. Backtraces here > http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2010-November/048092.html Right, so there its holding the inode in the read path while taking a page-fault which does an allocation. vs acquiring the inode in the xfs_reclaim_node_shrink() path. Presumably the whole xfs_fs_evict_inode() stuff will happen _after_ its possible to end up in that read path? Something like the below would give the lock-class an explicit name, because both sites now use the exact same init thing they're called: (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock) (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock#2) Which is hard to tell apart, but I suspect #2 is the dead one, since they get numbered in order of appearance and its hard to have a dead inode before having a life one ;-) In that case though, it would suggest the inode got re-used instead of destroyed and re-created using xfs_alloc_inode(), is that at all possible? --- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c index 064f964..721c1c5 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c +++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_super.c @@ -1091,6 +1091,8 @@ xfs_fs_write_inode( return -error; } +static struct lock_class_key xfs_dead_inode; + STATIC void xfs_fs_evict_inode( struct inode *inode) @@ -1118,6 +1120,8 @@ xfs_fs_evict_inode( */ ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_iolock.mr_lock)); mrlock_init(&ip->i_iolock, MRLOCK_BARRIER, "xfsio", ip->i_ino); + lockdep_set_class_and_name(&ip->i_iolock->mr_lock, &xfs_dead_inode, + "xfd_dead_inode"); xfs_inactive(ip); } _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
