xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:57:44 +0200
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, hch@xxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080825010213.GO5706@disturbed>
References: <6278d2220808221412x28f4ac5dl508884c8030b364a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080825010213.GO5706@disturbed>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
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().



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