From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: lockdep warning looks scsi related Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:19:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20061006171926.GC8814@kernel.dk> References: <20061005100853.4d65dc90@dxpl.pdx.osdl.net> <1160140963.3000.106.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([62.242.22.158]:32772 "EHLO kernel.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422763AbWJFRTm (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:19:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1160140963.3000.106.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Stephen Hemminger , James Bottomley , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton On Fri, Oct 06 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 10:08 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > This is current main linux-2.6 (git pulled yesterday). > > Running on 2 CPU Opteron > > Happened during overnight (beagle cronjob?) > > hmm lots of changes in cfq, and to be honest the > cfq_exit_single_io_context() change makes me nervous. > The comment says it's called with interrupts disabled, what the comment > does NOT say is that this function ENABLES interrupts! > (the entire cfq change has many places where interrupts now get enabled > where previously they remained as is... ) The comment is stale, it isn't called with interrupts disabled (or the spin_lock_irq() and unlock would be buggy). The lockdep trace is interesting though, added to the list of things to investigate ASAP. -- Jens Axboe