On Thu, 2010-11-25 at 06:25 -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 09:29:40PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Yes, actually it is - see the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE case in > > xfs_iget_cache_hit(). I guess we haven't seen the original lock > > inversion false positives that this was supposed to fix because the > > reclaim warnings trip first... > > > > I think that means we also need to reinitialise the lock when we recycle > > the inode out of the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state. > > I came up with the patch below when we had a previous report of the > warning, but I couldn't convince myself that it really helps: > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2010-09-20 12:10:28.227444173 -0300 > +++ linux-2.6/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2010-09-20 12:11:25.631444190 -0300 > @@ -207,6 +207,10 @@ xfs_iget_cache_hit( > > ip->i_flags &= ~XFS_INEW; > ip->i_flags |= XFS_IRECLAIMABLE; > + > + ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&ip->i_iolock.mr_lock)); > + mrlock_init(&ip->i_iolock, MRLOCK_BARRIER, "xfsio", ip->i_ino); > + > __xfs_inode_set_reclaim_tag(pag, ip); > trace_xfs_iget_reclaim_fail(ip); > goto out_error; That adds a 3rd class which should work, but doesn't validate that the first -- xfs_inode_alloc() and this one are in fact similar. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
