Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-04-10 Thread Dave Chinner
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 regula

Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-04-08 Thread Sasha Levin
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

Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-03-30 Thread Dave Chinner
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 08:20:30PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:31:09PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > Not sure if I've reported this already (it looks familiar, though I've > not managed > > > to find it

Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-03-30 Thread Dave Chinner
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

Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-03-30 Thread Dave Jones
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:43:35AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:31:09PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > Not sure if I've reported this already (it looks familiar, though I've not > > managed > > to find it in my sent mail folder). This is rc8 + a diff to fix the stack

Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-03-30 Thread Al Viro
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?) s

Re: xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-03-30 Thread Dave Chinner
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 06:31:09PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > Not sure if I've reported this already (it looks familiar, though I've not > managed > to find it in my sent mail folder). This is rc8 + a diff to fix the stack > usage reports > I was seeing (diff at http://paste.fedoraproject.org/89

xfs i_lock vs mmap_sem lockdep trace.

2014-03-29 Thread Dave Jones
Not sure if I've reported this already (it looks familiar, though I've not managed to find it in my sent mail folder). This is rc8 + a diff to fix the stack usage reports I was seeing (diff at http://paste.fedoraproject.org/89854/13210913/raw) ==