Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754352AbYHYCF0@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754352AbYHYCF0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:05:26 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752546AbYHYCFO
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:05:14 -0400
Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:50375 "EHLO relay.sgi.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752731AbYHYCFN (ORCPT
	<rfc822;@relay.sgi.com:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:05:13 -0400
Message-ID: <48B21507.9050708@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:12:23 +1000
From: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 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...
References: <6278d2220808221412x28f4ac5dl508884c8030b364a@mail.gmail.com> <20080825010213.GO5706@disturbed>
In-Reply-To: <20080825010213.GO5706@disturbed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2273
Lines: 72

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);


> 	.....
> 	xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 	xfs_iunlock(tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 	.....
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 
> Which is a perfectly valid thing to do.
> 
> The problem is that lockdep is complaining about the second call
> to xfs_lock_two_inodes(), which uses the subclasses 2 and 3.
> effectively it is seeing:
> 
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL | XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 		iolock/2
> 		ilock/2
> 		iolock/3
> 		ilock/3
> 	.....
> 	xfs_lock_two_inodes(ip, tip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> 		ilock/2
> 		ilock/3
> 
> 
> But because the original lock order was ilock/2->iolock/3, the
> second call to xfs_lock_two_inodes is seeing iolock/3->ilock/2
> which it then complains about....
> 
> Christoph - I think we're going to need to pass a lockdep 'order'
> flag into xfs_lock_two_inodes() to avoid this so the second call
> can use different classes to the first call. Or perhaps a '_nested'
> variant of the call...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
--
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/