lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lockdep trace with xfs + mm in it from 5.7.0-rc5
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:30:27AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 04:13:12PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > [cc linux-xfs]
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 08:21:50AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Just updated a rawhide VM to the Fedora 5.7.0-rc5 kernel, did some
> > > package building,
> > >
> > > got the below trace, not sure if it's known and fixed or unknown.
> >
> > It's a known false-positive. An inode can't simultaneously be getting
> > reclaimed due to zero refcount /and/ be the target of a getxattr call.
> > Unfortunately, lockdep can't tell the difference, and it seems a little
> > strange to set NOFS on the allocation (which increases the chances of a
> > runtime error) just to quiet that down.
>
> __GFP_NOLOCKDEP is the intended flag to telling memory allocation
> that lockdep is stupid.
>
> However, it seems that the patches that were in progress some months
> ago to convert XFS to kmalloc interfaces and using GFP flags
> directly stalled - being able to mark locations like this with
> __GFP_NOLOCKDEP was one of the main reasons for getting rid of all
> the internal XFS memory allocation wrappers...

Question is, should I spend time adding a GFP_NOLOCKDEP bandaid to XFS
or would my time be better spent reviewing your async inode reclaim
series to make this go away for real?

(Dang, now that I phrase it that way, Imma go read that series.)

--D

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-22 22:43    [W:0.069 / U:8.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site