xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS locking issues in 3.18-rc3+

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS locking issues in 3.18-rc3+
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:05:43 -0800
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20141114215007.GC29950@dastard>
References: <CALCETrWN71T1JsSNix52+ez_Sxt4i+vL-fX_2RTNbt8Ex1p=vw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141114052523.GB29950@dastard> <CALCETrVcp1BY3cO4Y2sdgGC+eQnyOF3xUCK6qng_Z_Y7dNi2yg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20141114215007.GC29950@dastard>
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 01:02:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 04:57:11PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> I'm running a kernel somewhere between 3.18-rc3 and 3.18-rc4.  I got
>> >> the warnings below.  Is this a known issue?
>> >
>> > Yup, false positive. shmem is instantiating an inode under the
>> > mmap_sem and in doing so taking inode locks under the mmap_sem,
>> > which triggers other filesystems to issue false warnings about
>> > mmap_sem <-> inode lock order.
>>
>> I still have an enormous flood of warnings even if
>> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=n.  This one is repeated at high frequency:
>>
>> [   70.969118] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [   70.969121] WARNING: CPU: 8 PID: 653 at mm/truncate.c:758
>> pagecache_isize_extended+0x105/0x110()
>
> Fixed in 3.18-rc4.

Yeah, I just confirmed that, too.  Thanks.  (The lockdep splat is
still there, but that's much less annoying.)

--Andy

>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC

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