On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:18:11AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:07:11PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > The XFS iolock needs to be re-initialised to a new lock class before
> > it enters reclaim to prevent lockdep false positives. Unfortunately,
> > this is not sufficient protection as inodes in the XFS_IRECLAIMABLE
> > state can be recycled and not re-initialised before being reused.
> > We need to re-initialise the lock state when transfering out of
> > XFS_IRECLAIMABLE state to XFS_INEW, but we need to keep the same
> > class as if the inode was just allocated. Hence we need a specific
> > lockdep class variable for the iolock so that both initialisations
> > use the same class.
> > While there, add a specific class for inodes in the reclaim state so
> > that it is easy to tell from lockdep reports what state the inode
> > was in that generated the report.
> Looks good to me. As long as we have the mrlock abstraction we might as
> well hide this behind it, but as I plan on killing the abstraction
> that's probably not worth the effort.
I thought about doing that, too, after looking at what the abstraction
still provides us with. I think it only provides an extra "is write
locked" debug check which I think could be added to the generic
rwsem code pretty easily. But I've got a big enough patch stack out
for review right now. ;)
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Thanks, I'll add it to the for-2.6.38 stack.