-mm: xfs lockdep warning
Christoph Hellwig
hch at infradead.org
Mon Sep 20 14:13:55 CDT 2010
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.
More information about the xfs
mailing list