[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1302901625.2035.37.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:07:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Irwin <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: hugetlb locking bug.
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 13:49 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Hmm. Adding the hugetlbfs/lockdep people to the cc.
>
> This _looks_ like the same kind of false positive we've had with some
> other cases: we're taking the i_mutex lock only dor directory inodes
> (for the readdir) and we take the i_mmap lock only for non-directory
> inodes, so you can't actually get any real circular locking issues.
>
> So yes, we do mix the order of i_mmap_sem and i_mutex, but it's
> conceptually two "different" kinds of i_mutex that just happen to
> share a name.
>
> And I really thought we annotated it as such with different
> "lockdep_set_class()" cases (ie the whole
>
> lockdep_set_class(&inode->i_mutex,&type->i_mutex_dir_key);
>
> for the S_ISDIR case in unlock_new_inode().
>
> Can somebody more alert than me see why this lockdep issue still
> triggers with hugetlbfs?
afaict hugetlbfs doesn't actually end up calling unlock_new_inode()
which does the whole IS_DIR() lockdep annotation, but then I might have
gotten lost in the whole inode allocation dance.
--
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