[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1260921277.3219.18.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:54:37 -0500
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NFS lockdep lock misordering mmap_sem<->i_mutex_key with
2.6.32-git1
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 00:38 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I suppose an easy workaround would be to not revalidate in mmap,
> because open should have already done that?
>
> Very lightly tested RFC patch attached.
>
> -Andi
>
> ---
>
> NFS: don't revalidate in mmap
>
> nfs_revalidate_mapping takes i_mutex, but mmap already has mmap_sem
> hold and taking i_mutex inside mmap_sem is not allowed by the VFS.
>
> So don't revalidate on mmap time and trust it has been already done.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>
> ---
> fs/nfs/file.c | 7 +------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-2.6.32-ak/fs/nfs/file.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.32-ak.orig/fs/nfs/file.c
> +++ linux-2.6.32-ak/fs/nfs/file.c
> @@ -297,14 +297,9 @@ nfs_file_mmap(struct file * file, struct
> dprintk("NFS: mmap(%s/%s)\n",
> dentry->d_parent->d_name.name, dentry->d_name.name);
>
> - /* Note: generic_file_mmap() returns ENOSYS on nommu systems
> - * so we call that before revalidating the mapping
> - */
> status = generic_file_mmap(file, vma);
> - if (!status) {
> + if (!status)
> vma->vm_ops = &nfs_file_vm_ops;
> - status = nfs_revalidate_mapping(inode, file->f_mapping);
> - }
> return status;
> }
>
If you want to work around the problem rather than going for something
like Peter's split up of the mmap() callback, then I'd suggest changing
to using nfs_revalidate_mapping_nolock() instead. The fact that we are
seeing these lock misordering warnings is proof that the call to
nfs_revalidate_mapping() is not always a no-op.
By not taking the i_mutex your call to invalidate_inode_pages2() can
potentially end up racing with another process that is writing to the
file, but that should be a rare occurrence. The effect will be that the
two processes can end up fighting to alternatively dirty and then clean
the pages...
Cheers
Trond
--
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