lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...
From
Date
On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 11:02 +1000, 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);
> .....
> 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....

Does the annotation I used for
double_lock_balance()/double_unlock_balance() work?

Basically, it assumes the held lock (this_rq) has subclass 0, but
because double_lock_balance() can unlock and relock, depending on order,
it can end up being 1 at the end. So what we do is reset the subclass
(after unlocking the now 0 lock) to 0 using lock_set_subclass().




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-25 09:01    [W:0.075 / U:3.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site