lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: lockdep: inconsistent {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-R} usage.
    On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 01:53:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 23:44 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
    > >
    > > > > I can't work out what the <mumble>RECLAIM_FS<mumble> notations are
    > > > > supposed to mean from the code and they are not documented at
    > > > > all, so I need someone to explain what this means before I can
    > > > > determine if it is a valid warning or not....
    > > >
    > > > The <mumble>RECLAIM_FS<mumble> bit means that lock (iprune_sem) was
    > > > taken from reclaim and is also taken over an allocation.
    > >
    > > So there's an implicit, undocumented requirement that inode reclaim
    > > during unmount requires a filesystem to do GFP_NOFS allocation?
    >
    > Well, I don't know enough about xfs (of filesystems in generic) to say
    > that with any certainty, but I can imagine inode writeback from the sync
    > that goes with umount to cause issues.
    >
    > If this inode reclaim is past all that and the filesystem is basically
    > RO, then I don't think so and this could be considered a false positive,
    > in which case we need an annotation for this.

    The issue is that the iprune_sem is held write locked over
    dispose_list() even though the inodes have been removed from the
    unused list. While iprune_sem is held write locked, we can't enter
    shrink_icache_memory because that takes the iprune_sem in read mode.
    Hence allocation anywhere in the dispose_list path has to be
    GFP_NOFS to avoid this.

    XFS relies on the PF_MEMALLOC flag to clear the __GFP_FS
    flag in allocations so that the same code paths work in both
    normal and reclaim situations (like _xfs_trans_alloc), but the
    unmount path sets no such flag. Setting this flag would
    avoid the problem, but is messy.

    FWIW, I'm not sure why we need to hold the iprune_sem after the
    inodes have been detached from the unused list in the unmount path.
    The iprune_sem is there to prevent against concurrent access by the
    shrink_icache_memory path, so once all the inodes are isolated it
    seems the iprune_sem is not needed anymore. Of course, this code is
    a maze of twisty passages, so there's likely to be something I've
    missed that means that this is the only way it can work....

    Cheers,

    Dave.
    --
    Dave Chinner
    david@fromorbit.com


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-15 14:37    [W:0.024 / U:0.252 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site