[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87k1vomi74.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:35:43 +1100
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
"open list\:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ashmem: Fix lockdep RECLAIM_FS false positive
On Wed, Feb 07 2018, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> [...]
>>
>>> Lockdep reports this issue when GFP_FS is infact set, and we enter
>>> this path and acquire the lock. So lockdep seems to be doing the right
>>> thing however by design it is reporting a false-positive.
>>
>> So I'm not seeing how its a false positive. fs/inode.c sets a different
>> lock class per filesystem type. So recursing on an i_mutex within a
>> filesystem does sound dodgy.
>
> But directory inodes and file inodes in the same filesystem share the
> same lock class right?
Not since v2.6.24
Commit: 14358e6ddaed ("lockdep: annotate dir vs file i_mutex")
You were using 4.9.60. so they should be separate....
Maybe shmem_get_inode() needs to call unlock_new_inode() or just
lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key() after inode_init_owner().
Maybe inode_init_owner() should call lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key()
directly.
NeilBrown
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists