On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:18:11AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:07:11PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The XFS iolock needs to be re-initialised to a new lock class before > > it enters reclaim to prevent lockdep false positives. Unfortunately, > > this is not sufficient protection as inodes in the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE > > state can be recycled and not re-initialised before being reused. > > > > We need to re-initialise the lock state when transfering out of > > XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state to XFS_INEW, but we need to keep the same > > class as if the inode was just allocated. Hence we need a specific > > lockdep class variable for the iolock so that both initialisations > > use the same class. > > > > While there, add a specific class for inodes in the reclaim state so > > that it is easy to tell from lockdep reports what state the inode > > was in that generated the report. > > Looks good to me. As long as we have the mrlock abstraction we might as > well hide this behind it, but as I plan on killing the abstraction > that's probably not worth the effort. I thought about doing that, too, after looking at what the abstraction still provides us with. I think it only provides an extra "is write locked" debug check which I think could be added to the generic rwsem code pretty easily. But I've got a big enough patch stack out for review right now. ;) > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> Thanks, I'll add it to the for-2.6.38 stack. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
