On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 07:40 +0000, Simon Arlott wrote: > On 25/09/07 09:46, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Tue 25-09-07 10:02:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:01:35 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > On Mon 03-09-07 05:49:59, Andrew Morton wrote: > >> > > > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 14:27:02 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:00:33 +0200 Folkert van Heusden <[EMAIL > >> > > > > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > > > > Has been reported before, but I don't recall whether we fixed it. > >> > > > > Jan, > >> > > > > do you know>? > >> > > > I think we at least found a solution: Teach lockdep that I_MUTEX > >> > > > for > >> > > > different filesystems is different. Peter Zilstra wrote a patch for > >> > > > that > >> > > > and Folkert even confirmed that it fixes the problem for him. I'm not > >> > > > sure what happened with the patch afterwards though. Adding Peter to > >> > > > CC > >> > > > :). > >> > > > >> > > But this is a tty_lock-versus-dqptr_sem ranking error. Unrelated to > >> > > i_mutex? > >> > The final report is for this ranking but the locking chain (if I > >> > understand it > >> > right) is: > >> > tty_mutex (con_close) -> i_mutex (sysfs: remove_subdir) > >> > i_mutex (do_truncate) -> i_alloc_sem (notify_change) -> truncate_mutex > >> > (ext3_truncate) > >> > truncate_mutex (ext3_get_blocks_handle) -> dqptr_sem (dquot_alloc_space) > >> > > >> > So it complains about tty_mutex vs dqptr_sem (I don't know why it does > >> > not > >> > complain about tty_mutex vs i_mutex) but the wrong link in the chain is > >> > that i_mutex from remove_subdir() [sysfs] and i_mutex from do_truncate() > >> > [ext3] are different and should never depend on each other... > >> > > >> > >> Found it again. > > Cool, thanks Peter. Andrew, would you put it into -mm? This should take > > care of > > the false lockdep warnings from the quota code. If I recall correctly, one > > of the reporters even confirmed it fixes the problem for him. > > The patch looks fine. You can add: > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Honza > > > >> Give each filesystem its own inode lock class. The various filesystems have > >> different locking order wrt the inode locks; esp. the pseudo filesystems > >> differ from the rest. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This patch still doesn't exist in 2.6.23.9 and the warning isn't fixed...
It would have been if you'd used .24-rc :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
