[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1540241646.128590.16.camel@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 13:54:06 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"linux-nvme @ lists . infradead . org"
<linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "workqueue: re-add lockdep dependencies for
flushing"
On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 22:28 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> The lockdep report even more or less tells you what's going on. Perhaps
> we need to find a way to make lockdep not print "lock()" but "start()"
> or "flush()" for work items ... but if you read it this way, you see:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
>
> lock(i_mutex_key)
> start(dio->complete_work)
> lock(i_mutex_key)
> flush(wq dio/...)
>
> which is *clearly* a problem.
Your patch made lockdep report that the direct I/O code deadlocks although it
clearly doesn't deadlock. So where do you think the bug is? In the direct I/O
code or in your patch?
The code in the column with label "CPU0" is code called by do_blockdev_direct_IO().
>From the body of that function:
/* will be released by direct_io_worker */
inode_lock(inode);
I think that is sufficient evidence that the direct I/O code is fine and that
your patch caused lockdep to produce an incorrect deadlock report.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists