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; _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
