lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: next-20090220: XFS: inconsistent lock state
Date

On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:

> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 08:52:59PM +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
>>> 2.6.29-rc5-next-20090220 #2
>>> ---------------------------------
>>> inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-R} usage.
>>> kswapd0/324 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
>>> (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){+++++?}, at: [<ffffffff803ca60a>]
>>> xfs_ilock+0xaa/0x120
>>> {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} state was registered at:
>>
>> That's a false positive. While the ilock can be taken in reclaim the
>> allocation here is done before the inode is added to the inode cache.
>>
>> The patch below should help avoiding the warning:
>
> Seems ok to me. I hate to see the BUG() added but I guess in this
> case
> something truly bizarre would have to happen for the ilock to fail on
> this inode.
>
> on irc you sugggested ASSERT(0); instead of BUG();

That would mean that instead of bombing out here, we do it
in xfs debug kernels only, which is a good thing. However,
do we just silently ignore it in non debug kernels, and
later try to unlock without locking first?
Maybe the following be better:

if (lock_flags) {
if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, lock_flags)) {
ASSERT(0);
error = EAGAIN;
goto out_destroy;
}
}
Or just keep the BUG(); , as it shouldn't happen (we hope).

Reviewed-by: Felix Blyakher <felixb@sgi.com>


> I might prefer that
> but either way:
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
>
>>
>> Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2009-02-24 20:56:00.716027739 +0100
>> +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2009-02-24 20:56:46.089031360 +0100
>> @@ -246,9 +246,6 @@ xfs_iget_cache_miss(
>> goto out_destroy;
>> }
>>
>> - if (lock_flags)
>> - xfs_ilock(ip, lock_flags);
>> -
>> /*
>> * Preload the radix tree so we can insert safely under the
>> * write spinlock. Note that we cannot sleep inside the preload
>> @@ -259,6 +256,15 @@ xfs_iget_cache_miss(
>> goto out_unlock;
>> }
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Because the inode hasn't been added to the radix-tree yet it
>> can't
>> + * be found by another thread, so we can do the non-sleeping lock
>> here.
>> + */
>> + if (lock_flags) {
>> + if (!xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, lock_flags))
>> + BUG();
>> + }
>> +
>> mask = ~(((XFS_INODE_CLUSTER_SIZE(mp) >> mp->m_sb.sb_inodelog)) -
>> 1);
>> first_index = agino & mask;
>> write_lock(&pag->pag_ici_lock);
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
> kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-03 17:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans