| Message ID | 1496840455-65279-1-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:00:55AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > The 0-day kernel test robot reports assertion failures on > !CONFIG_SMP kernels due to failed spin_is_locked() checks. As it > turns out, spin_is_locked() is hardcoded to return zero on > !CONFIG_SMP kernels and so this function cannot be relied on to > verify spinlock state in this configuration. > > To avoid this problem, replace the associated asserts with lockdep > variants that do the right thing regardless of kernel configuration. > Drop the one assert that checks for an unlocked lock as there is no > suitable lockdep variant for that case. This moves the spinlock > checks from XFS debug code to lockdep, but generally provides the > same level of protection. > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> > --- > > Here's another version that uses lockdep calls as suggested by > Christoph. Looks ok, will test: Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> Hmm.... do you want me to put this into 4.12? It's sort of a regression introduced in -rc4, but on the other hand this seems to have been broken for quite a while for SMP=n && XFS_DEBUG=y and nobody complained... --D > > Brian > > v2: > - Use lockdep asserts instead of config check. > - Drop !spin_is_locked() assert from inode initialization. > v1: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-xfs/msg07463.html > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 +- > fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 5 ++--- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > index 07b77b7..16d6a57 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static inline void > __xfs_buf_ioacct_dec( > struct xfs_buf *bp) > { > - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&bp->b_lock)); > + lockdep_assert_held(&bp->b_lock); > > if (bp->b_state & XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT) { > bp->b_state &= ~XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT; > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > index f61c84f8..990210f 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ xfs_inode_alloc( > > XFS_STATS_INC(mp, vn_active); > ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) == 0); > - ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&ip->i_flags_lock)); > ASSERT(!xfs_isiflocked(ip)); > ASSERT(ip->i_ino == 0); > > @@ -190,7 +189,7 @@ xfs_perag_set_reclaim_tag( > { > struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount; > > - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock)); > + lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock); > if (pag->pag_ici_reclaimable++) > return; > > @@ -212,7 +211,7 @@ xfs_perag_clear_reclaim_tag( > { > struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount; > > - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock)); > + lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock); > if (--pag->pag_ici_reclaimable) > return; > > -- > 2.7.5 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:26:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:00:55AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > The 0-day kernel test robot reports assertion failures on > > !CONFIG_SMP kernels due to failed spin_is_locked() checks. As it > > turns out, spin_is_locked() is hardcoded to return zero on > > !CONFIG_SMP kernels and so this function cannot be relied on to > > verify spinlock state in this configuration. > > > > To avoid this problem, replace the associated asserts with lockdep > > variants that do the right thing regardless of kernel configuration. > > Drop the one assert that checks for an unlocked lock as there is no > > suitable lockdep variant for that case. This moves the spinlock > > checks from XFS debug code to lockdep, but generally provides the > > same level of protection. > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> > > --- > > > > Here's another version that uses lockdep calls as suggested by > > Christoph. > > Looks ok, will test: > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > Hmm.... do you want me to put this into 4.12? It's sort of a regression > introduced in -rc4, but on the other hand this seems to have been broken > for quite a while for SMP=n && XFS_DEBUG=y and nobody complained... > I don't have a major preference either way. I generally agree that the issue is old and that the recent patch just widened the scope slightly such that the 0-day test caught it, so I'm fine with deferring it to next from a technical perspective. I'm actually not sure if the 0-day test thing is going to continue to complain about the issue on subsequent merges or -rc drops, or if it's just a one time informational thing..? If the former I suppose it might make sense to drop this into 4.12 to quiet the tests and fix the "regression." If the latter, perhaps just defer it..? Thanks for the review.. Brian > --D > > > > > Brian > > > > v2: > > - Use lockdep asserts instead of config check. > > - Drop !spin_is_locked() assert from inode initialization. > > v1: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-xfs/msg07463.html > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 +- > > fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 5 ++--- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > > index 07b77b7..16d6a57 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static inline void > > __xfs_buf_ioacct_dec( > > struct xfs_buf *bp) > > { > > - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&bp->b_lock)); > > + lockdep_assert_held(&bp->b_lock); > > > > if (bp->b_state & XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT) { > > bp->b_state &= ~XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT; > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > index f61c84f8..990210f 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ xfs_inode_alloc( > > > > XFS_STATS_INC(mp, vn_active); > > ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) == 0); > > - ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&ip->i_flags_lock)); > > ASSERT(!xfs_isiflocked(ip)); > > ASSERT(ip->i_ino == 0); > > > > @@ -190,7 +189,7 @@ xfs_perag_set_reclaim_tag( > > { > > struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount; > > > > - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock)); > > + lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock); > > if (pag->pag_ici_reclaimable++) > > return; > > > > @@ -212,7 +211,7 @@ xfs_perag_clear_reclaim_tag( > > { > > struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount; > > > > - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock)); > > + lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock); > > if (--pag->pag_ici_reclaimable) > > return; > > > > -- > > 2.7.5 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 08:26:07AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Hmm.... do you want me to put this into 4.12? It's sort of a regression > introduced in -rc4, but on the other hand this seems to have been broken > for quite a while for SMP=n && XFS_DEBUG=y and nobody complained... Please add it to 4.12. It's harmless, and the thing that triggered it only was merged in 4.12-rc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c index 07b77b7..16d6a57 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static inline void __xfs_buf_ioacct_dec( struct xfs_buf *bp) { - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&bp->b_lock)); + lockdep_assert_held(&bp->b_lock); if (bp->b_state & XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT) { bp->b_state &= ~XFS_BSTATE_IN_FLIGHT; diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c index f61c84f8..990210f 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ xfs_inode_alloc( XFS_STATS_INC(mp, vn_active); ASSERT(atomic_read(&ip->i_pincount) == 0); - ASSERT(!spin_is_locked(&ip->i_flags_lock)); ASSERT(!xfs_isiflocked(ip)); ASSERT(ip->i_ino == 0); @@ -190,7 +189,7 @@ xfs_perag_set_reclaim_tag( { struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount; - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock)); + lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock); if (pag->pag_ici_reclaimable++) return; @@ -212,7 +211,7 @@ xfs_perag_clear_reclaim_tag( { struct xfs_mount *mp = pag->pag_mount; - ASSERT(spin_is_locked(&pag->pag_ici_lock)); + lockdep_assert_held(&pag->pag_ici_lock); if (--pag->pag_ici_reclaimable) return;
The 0-day kernel test robot reports assertion failures on !CONFIG_SMP kernels due to failed spin_is_locked() checks. As it turns out, spin_is_locked() is hardcoded to return zero on !CONFIG_SMP kernels and so this function cannot be relied on to verify spinlock state in this configuration. To avoid this problem, replace the associated asserts with lockdep variants that do the right thing regardless of kernel configuration. Drop the one assert that checks for an unlocked lock as there is no suitable lockdep variant for that case. This moves the spinlock checks from XFS debug code to lockdep, but generally provides the same level of protection. Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> --- Here's another version that uses lockdep calls as suggested by Christoph. Brian v2: - Use lockdep asserts instead of config check. - Drop !spin_is_locked() assert from inode initialization. v1: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-xfs/msg07463.html fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 2 +- fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 5 ++--- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)