All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:52:34 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140410225234.GF27519@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53445EC0.9060707@oracle.com>

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:40:32PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/30/2014 08:40 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:57:17AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>> > > filldir on a directory inode vs page fault on regular file. Known
> >>> > > issue, definitely a false positive. We have to change locking
> >>> > > algorithms to avoid such deficiencies of lockdep (a case of "lockdep
> >>> > > considered harmful", perhaps?) so it's not something I'm about to
> >>> > > rush...
> >> > 
> >> > Give i_lock on directories a separate class, as it's been done for i_mutex...
> > Already done that. Commit:
> > 
> > 93a8614 xfs: fix directory inode iolock lockdep false positive
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> The commit above introduces a new lockdep issue for me:

Right, it's fixed one class of false positive which uncovers the
next class of false positive. lockdep gives me the shits at times
because every time we make some obviously correct locking change
to the XFS inodes we then spend the next 3-4 kernel releases chasing
down and annotating locks so that lockdep doesn't throw false
positives everywhere.

It's on my queue of things to fix but, quite frankly, lockdep false
positives are low priority to fix right now.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 08:52:34 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140410225234.GF27519@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53445EC0.9060707@oracle.com>

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:40:32PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 03/30/2014 08:40 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 12:57:17AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>> > > filldir on a directory inode vs page fault on regular file. Known
> >>> > > issue, definitely a false positive. We have to change locking
> >>> > > algorithms to avoid such deficiencies of lockdep (a case of "lockdep
> >>> > > considered harmful", perhaps?) so it's not something I'm about to
> >>> > > rush...
> >> > 
> >> > Give i_lock on directories a separate class, as it's been done for i_mutex...
> > Already done that. Commit:
> > 
> > 93a8614 xfs: fix directory inode iolock lockdep false positive
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> The commit above introduces a new lockdep issue for me:

Right, it's fixed one class of false positive which uncovers the
next class of false positive. lockdep gives me the shits at times
because every time we make some obviously correct locking change
to the XFS inodes we then spend the next 3-4 kernel releases chasing
down and annotating locks so that lockdep doesn't throw false
positives everywhere.

It's on my queue of things to fix but, quite frankly, lockdep false
positives are low priority to fix right now.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2014-04-10 22:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-29 22:31 xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace Dave Jones
2014-03-29 22:31 ` Dave Jones
2014-03-30 23:43 ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-30 23:43   ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-30 23:57   ` Al Viro
2014-03-30 23:57     ` Al Viro
2014-03-31  0:40     ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-31  0:40       ` Dave Chinner
2014-04-08 20:40       ` Sasha Levin
2014-04-08 20:40         ` Sasha Levin
2014-04-10 22:52         ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2014-04-10 22:52           ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-31  0:20   ` Dave Jones
2014-03-31  0:20     ` Dave Jones
2014-03-31  0:42     ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-31  0:42       ` Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140410225234.GF27519@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=davej@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sasha.levin@oracle.com \
    --cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.