[Top] [All Lists]

Re: -mm: xfs lockdep warning

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: -mm: xfs lockdep warning
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:55 -0400
Cc: Yang Ruirui <ruirui.r.yang@xxxxxxxxx>, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20100917005227.GJ24409@dastard>
References: <201009161546.16909.ruirui.r.yang@xxxxxxxxx> <20100917005227.GJ24409@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:52:27AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Christoph, this implies an inode that has been marked for reclaim
> that has not passed through xfs_fs_evict_inode() after being
> initialised. If it went through the eviction process, the iolock
> would have been re-initialised to a different context. Can you think
> of any path that can get here without going through ->evict? I can't
> off the top of my head...

I think this could happen if the init_inode_always during
re-initialization of an inode in reclaim fails in iget.  I have a patch
to add that I'll run through xfsqa.  It should only happen very rarely.

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