xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.
From: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:57:17 +0100
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140330234335.GB16336@dastard>
References: <20140329223109.GA24098@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140330234335.GB16336@dastard>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> filldir on a directory inode vs page fault on regular file. Known
> issue, definitely a false positive. We have to change locking
> algorithms to avoid such deficiencies of lockdep (a case of "lockdep
> considered harmful", perhaps?) so it's not something I'm about to
> rush...

Give i_lock on directories a separate class, as it's been done for i_mutex...

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