Re: [xfs-masters] Re: [BUG] Lockdep warning with XFS on 2.6.22-rc6

[Tim Shimmin <tes@sgi.com>]

Patch looks good, Dave.
(though, I stuffed up reviewing that bit of code previously:-)

Oh, previous typo: s/inodes at the some time/inodes at the same time/

--Tim

David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 11:35:20AM +0200, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On 26-06-2007 04:16, David Chinner wrote:
> > > It does both - parent-first/child-second and ascending inode # order,
> > > which is where the problem is. standing alone, these seem fine, but
> > > they don't appear to work when the child has a lower inode number
> > > than the parent.
> > ...
> >
> > >From xfs_inode.h:
> >
> > /*
> >  * Flags for lockdep annotations.
> >  *
> >  * XFS_I[O]LOCK_PARENT - for operations that require locking two inodes
> >  * (ie directory operations that require locking a directory inode and
> >  * an entry inode).  The first inode gets locked with this flag so it
> >  * gets a lockdep subclass of 1 and the second lock will have a lockdep
> >  * subclass of 0.
> >  *
> >  * XFS_I[O]LOCK_INUMORDER - for locking several inodes at the some time
> >  * with xfs_lock_inodes().  This flag is used as the starting subclass
> >  * and each subsequent lock acquired will increment the subclass by one.
> >  * So the first lock acquired will have a lockdep subclass of 2, the
> >  * second lock will have a lockdep subclass of 3, and so on.
> >  */
> >
> > I don't know xfs code, and probably miss something, but it seems
> > there could be some inconsistency: lockdep warning shows mr_lock/1
> > taken both before and after mr_lock (i.e. /0). According to the
> > above comment there should be always 1 before 0...
>
> That just fired some rusty neurons.
>
> #define XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT        16
> #define XFS_IOLOCK_PARENT       (1 << XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT)
> #define XFS_IOLOCK_INUMORDER    (2 << XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT)
>
> #define XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT         24
> #define XFS_ILOCK_PARENT        (1 << XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT)
> #define XFS_ILOCK_INUMORDER     (2 << XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT)
>
> So, in a lock_mode parameter, the upper 8 bits are for the ILOCK lockdep
> subclass, and the 16..23 bits are for the IOLOCK lockdep subclass.
>
> Where do we add them?
>
> static inline int
> xfs_lock_inumorder(int lock_mode, int subclass)
> {
>         if (lock_mode & (XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED|XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL))
>                 lock_mode |= (subclass + XFS_IOLOCK_INUMORDER) << XFS_IOLOCK_SHIFT;
>         if (lock_mode & (XFS_ILOCK_SHARED|XFS_ILOCK_EXCL))
>                 lock_mode |= (subclass + XFS_ILOCK_INUMORDER) << XFS_ILOCK_SHIFT;
>
>         return lock_mode;
> }
>
>
> OH, look at those nice overflow bugs in that in that code. We shift
> the XFS_IOLOCK_INUMORDER and XFS_ILOCK_INUMORDER bits out the far
> side of the lock_mode variable result in lock subclasses of 0-3 instead
> of 2-5....
>
> Bugger, eh?
>
> Patch below should fix this (untested).
>
> Jarek - thanks for pointing what I should have seen earlier.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/