Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754611AbYHYDz5@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754611AbYHYDz5 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:55:57 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753251AbYHYDzs
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:55:48 -0400
Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.146]:53731 "EHLO
	ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752895AbYHYDzs (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:55:48 -0400
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmkDACTHsUh5LD0wiGdsb2JhbACSLQEBAQ8goAuBaw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,264,1217773800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="179554997"
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:55:42 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
Cc: Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>,
       Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
       hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [2.6.27-rc4] XFS i_lock vs i_iolock...
Message-ID: <20080825035542.GR5706@disturbed>
Mail-Followup-To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	hch@lst.de
References: <6278d2220808221412x28f4ac5dl508884c8030b364a@mail.gmail.com> <20080825010213.GO5706@disturbed> <48B21507.9050708@sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48B21507.9050708@sgi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1753
Lines: 49

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:12:23PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 10:12:59PM +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>>> On 2.6.27-rc4 with various debug options enabled, lockdep claims lock
>>> ordering issues with XFS [1] - easiest reproducer is just running
>>> xfs_fsr. Mount options I was using were
>>> 'nobarrier,noatime,nodiratime'.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>   Daniel
>>>
>>> --- [1]
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>> 2.6.27-rc4-224c #1
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> xfs_fsr/5763 is trying to acquire lock:
>>>  (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock/2){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad8fc>] xfs_ilock+0x8c/0xb0
>>>
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>>  (&(&ip->i_iolock)->mr_lock/3){--..}, at: [<ffffffff803ad915>]
>>> xfs_ilock+0xa5/0xb0
>>
>> False positive. We do:
>>
>> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
>
> Why not just change the above line to two lines:
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);

Yeah, that'd work, but it implllies that we no longer allow
xfs_lock_two_inodes() to take both inode locks at once. It
would need a comment blaming^Wexplaining why lockdep requires
us to do this, and then debug code in xfs_lock_two_inodes() to
catch this when someone makes this mistake again in the future.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/