[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] ashmem: Fix lockdep RECLAIM_FS false positive
On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:35 PM, NeilBrown <> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <> 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.

Thanks for the ideas! I will test lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key
after inode_init_owner in shmem and let you know if the issue goes
away. It seems hugetlbfs does this too (I think for similar reasons).

- Joel

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-08 03:29    [W:0.040 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site