[Top] [All Lists]

Re: lockdep: inconsistent lock state

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: lockdep: inconsistent lock state
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:36:29 -0500
Cc: Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20091227212700.GA7613@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.01.0912261255380.3483@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091227212700.GA7613@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 08:27:00AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> This is the usual false positive that is detected - XFS takes locks in
> reclaim that it also takes in non-reclaim paths. The reclaim path
> from kswapd inverts lock ordering and so we get this report. This
> case has never been a deadlock case because an inode in reclaim
> cannot be referenced by any other path, so once again it is a
> false positive....

This should be gone in 2.6.33-rc as we now tell lockdep about resetting
the dependency graph for the iolock once entering the inode reclaim path.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: lockdep: inconsistent lock state, Christoph Hellwig <=