From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o95GmjUY236078 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:48:46 -0500 Message-ID: <4CAB5779.5020901@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:51:05 +0200 From: Tejun Heo MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: -mm: xfs lockdep warning References: <201009161546.16909.ruirui.r.yang@tieto.com> <20100917005227.GJ24409@dastard> <20100920191355.GA28443@infradead.org> <4CA997DF.5030008@kernel.org> <20101004092107.GJ4681@dastard> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Torsten Kaiser Cc: Yang Ruirui , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig , Alex Elder , Andrew Morton Hello, This is getting confusing. On 10/05/2010 12:09 PM, Torsten Kaiser wrote: > 2) the hang with 2.6.35-rc5 I have seen twice (triggered probably by > high load while building KOffice on an tmpfs) The trace doesn't seem to firmly point at xfs locking up. There are md and dm crypt involved. Are you sure this is locking up inside xfs? Also, can you please enable frame pointers so that we can get more reliable backtrace? > 3) the lockdep issue that started this thread and that I am seeing in > mainline 2.6.36-rc5 and -rc6 and that seems to be rather easy to > trigger for me. > > Because 3) is regarded as a false positive, it should not be the cause > of 2) For now, let's not draw any conclusion or mix the issues. I'll look up the original thread and look into what the lockdep warning means. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs