xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: lockdep annotations?

To: Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: lockdep annotations?
From: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:46:30 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <alpine.DEB.0.999.0709012300030.6640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.DEB.0.999.0709012300030.6640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604)
This is a locking inversion between the iolock and iprune_mutex.  I
hadn't seen this one before.  Was your system running low on memory
at the time?

We can't drop the iolock in the write path so we'll have to avoid
acquiring the iolock in xfs_ireclaim() which means we'll need another
way to synchronise with xfs_sync_inodes().

Thanks for pointing this one out.

Lachlan

Christian Kujau wrote:
Hi,

I try to follow -rc kernels and just upgraded to 2.6.23-rc5 and I still see: "INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected". Out of curiosity: (when) will these warnings be addressed? I mean, suits me for enabling CONFIG_LOCKDEP in the first place, but the only warnings I get is still xfs :)

FWIW, full log is here: http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.23-rc5/messages_2.6.23-rc5

Thanks,
Christian.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>