xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: Re-initialise lockdep context for all inodes in reclaim

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Re-initialise lockdep context for all inodes in reclaim
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:37:11 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100527122138.GA14632@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1274925546-31468-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100527122138.GA14632@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:21:38AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:59:06AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > We re-initialise the lockdep context for inode iolocks when dropping an 
> > inode,
> > but not when we delete an inode. Now that we can reclaim inodes from a 
> > shrinker,
> > we can get get false lockdep warnings about inode iolock inversions during
> > reclaim of deleted inodes. Hence we need to re-initialise the iolock in the
> > delete path as well.
> 
> clear_inode also gets called when we delete an inode, so at least
> the rationale for this isn't quite right.  It seems like we re-acquire
> new lockdep dependecies between clear_inode and destroy_inode that your
> shrinker doesn't like.  What lockdep report do you see?

I'll have to regenerate it - I saw it a couple of times with the
current shrinker, and it went away with this patch. I'll put this
on hold for the moment.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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