[Cluster-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/2] dlm: Add down/up_write_non_owner to keep lockdep happy
David Teigland
teigland at redhat.com
Thu Nov 12 18:34:47 UTC 2009
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:24:12PM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > > Nov 12 15:10:01 chywoon kernel: [ INFO: possible recursive locking
> > > detected ]
> >
> > That recursive locking trace is something different. up_write_non_owner()
> > addresses this trace, which as you say, is from doing the down and up from
> > different threads (which is the intention):
> >
> I don't think it is different, the traces differ due to the ordering of
> running of dlm_recoverd and mount.gfs2,
I explained the "recursive locking" warning back in Sep:
> I've not looked at how to remove this "recursive" message. What
> happens is that mount calls dlm_new_lockspace() which returns with
> in_recovery locked. mount then makes a lock request which blocks on
> in_recovery (as expected) until the dlm_recoverd thread completes
> recovery and releases the in_recovery lock (triggering the unlock
> balance) to allow locking activity.
It doesn't appear to me that up_write_non_owner() would suppress that.
Dave
More information about the Cluster-devel
mailing list