From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:34:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m7C3YBkh014712 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:34:11 -0700 Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E03B7F2E40A for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org (ishtar.tlinx.org [64.81.245.74]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id gq7X60tq8Ahz2nH2 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48A104EB.6040509@tlinx.org> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:35:07 -0700 From: Linda Walsh MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Lock debugging noise or real problem? References: <48A093A7.40606@tlinx.org> <48A09CA9.9080705@sandeen.net> <48A0F686.2090700@tlinx.org> <48A0F9FC.1070805@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <48A0F9FC.1070805@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: LKML , xfs-oss Eric Sandeen wrote: > I haven't looked closely at #2 but there have been so many lockdep > reports for xfs, and so many explanations of why they don't always get > along, you'll probably be able to find something with some searching. > ---- So in debugging mysterious 'lockups' where I've, at least once, noticed a hangcheck_timer elapse, this lock-checking stuff is just nonsensical? It is very frustrating trying to turn on debug tools in the kernel and get so many false positives. Would it be possible or, perhaps, desirable to eliminate the buggy lock-checks in the xfs code? Meanwhile...back to finding reasons for the semi-random, periodic hanging... ;^/