From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m9M8QoiM014560 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:26:51 -0700 Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D1AAF52BA16 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail01.adl6.internode.on.net [203.16.214.146]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 1lCh9OI0agONGX5B for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:28:29 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:131 XFS? (was: Re: linux-next: Tree for October 17) Message-ID: <20081022082828.GN18495@disturbed> References: <20081017203710.GA27187@infradead.org> <20081017135510.7127c4e7@infradead.org> <20081020163327.GA15651@infradead.org> <20081020223549.GA21152@disturbed> <20081022075838.GK18495@disturbed> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Alexander Beregalov Cc: lachlan@sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig , Arjan van de Ven , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:21:23PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote: > > Ah, OK, I see the problem, though I don't understand why I'm not > > seeing the might_sleep() triggering all the time given that I always > > build with: > > > > $ grep SLEEP .config > > CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP=y > > > > Basically the above commit moved xfs_ilock() inside > > radix_tree_preload()/radix_tree_preload_end(), which means we are > > taking a rwsem() while we have an elevated preempt count. I'll > > get a patch out to fix it. > Could it cause the I/O dead lock or should I continue trying to reproduce it? The deadlock wouldn't be produced by the same thing that produced the sleeping-in-atomic warning. The missed unlock that I also fixed in the patch I just sent could possibly have caused that, but I'm just speculating on that... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com