lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:12:59PM +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> On 2.6.27-rc4 with various debug options enabled, lockdep claims lock
>> ordering issues with XFS [1] - easiest reproducer is just running
>> xfs_fsr. Mount options I was using were
>> 'nobarrier,noatime,nodiratime'.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>>
>> --- [1]
>>
>> =======================================================
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> xfs_fsr/5763 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>]
>> xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
>
> False positive. We do:
>
> xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);

Why not just change the above line to two lines:
xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);


> .....
> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> xfs_iunlock(tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> .....
> xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
>
> Which is a perfectly valid thing to do.
>
> The problem is that lockdep is complaining about the second call
> to xfs_lock_two_inodes(), which uses the subclasses 2 and 3.
> effectively it is seeing:
>
> xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> iolock/2
> ilock/2
> iolock/3
> ilock/3
> .....
> xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> ilock/2
> ilock/3
>
>
> But because the original lock order was ilock/2->iolock/3, the
> second call to xfs_lock_two_inodes is seeing iolock/3->ilock/2
> which it then complains about....
>
> Christoph - I think we're going to need to pass a lockdep 'order'
> flag into xfs_lock_two_inodes() to avoid this so the second call
> can use different classes to the first call. Or perhaps a '_nested'
> variant of the call...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-25 04:07    [W:0.049 / U:0.688 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site