| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Re-initialise lockdep context for all inodes in reclaim |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 27 May 2010 08:21:38 -0400 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1274925546-31468-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1274925546-31468-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) |
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? |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: puzzling error: XenServer, LVM and XFS, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: fix might_sleep() warning when initialising per-ag tree, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | [PATCH] xfs: Re-initialise lockdep context for all inodes in reclaim, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Re-initialise lockdep context for all inodes in reclaim, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |