[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1238200321.4039.371.camel@laptop>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:32:01 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Possible IRQ lock inversion from 2.6.29-Linus-03321-gbe0ea69
(2.6.29-git)
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 12:06 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:54:35 +0100
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > I remember looking a bit more closely into the issue and not seeing
> > the problem with the locking (though I could have missed something):
> >
> > file->f_lock is never taken in hard-irq or soft-irq context and in
> > the only place where file->f_lock is taken with fasync_lock hold we're
> > protected against IRQs by write_lock_irq().
>
> I do think that the warning is spurious at this time.
I think you're right (although at 1:30 am I can't be sure).
It does point to inconsistent (sloppy) lock usage though, because f_lock
is used both with and without irqs disabled -- so on that ground its
correct to complain.
> diff --git a/fs/fcntl.c b/fs/fcntl.c
> index d865ca6..b9c1a4b 100644
> --- a/fs/fcntl.c
> +++ b/fs/fcntl.c
> @@ -531,6 +531,7 @@ int fasync_helper(int fd, struct file * filp, int on, struct fasync_struct **fap
> if (!new)
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
> + spin_lock(&filp->f_lock); /* outside fasync_lock to keep lockdep happy */
Please don't put in comments like that, they're worse than useless.
Either explain in detail how and why, or don't bother.
> write_lock_irq(&fasync_lock);
> for (fp = fapp; (fa = *fp) != NULL; fp = &fa->fa_next) {
> if (fa->fa_file == filp) {
> @@ -555,14 +556,12 @@ int fasync_helper(int fd, struct file * filp, int on, struct fasync_struct **fap
> result = 1;
> }
> out:
> - /* Fix up FASYNC bit while still holding fasync_lock */
> - spin_lock(&filp->f_lock);
> if (on)
> filp->f_flags |= FASYNC;
> else
> filp->f_flags &= ~FASYNC;
> - spin_unlock(&filp->f_lock);
> write_unlock_irq(&fasync_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&filp->f_lock);
> return result;
> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists