From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751254AbWGCTjb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:39:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751251AbWGCTjb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:39:31 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:35724 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751254AbWGCTja (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jul 2006 15:39:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:39:20 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Alistair John Strachan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nathan Scott Subject: Re: 2.6.17-mm6 Message-Id: <20060703123920.ff1a497a.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200607032027.21879.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> References: <20060703030355.420c7155.akpm@osdl.org> <200607032027.21879.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.17; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 20:27:21 +0100 Alistair John Strachan wrote: > On Monday 03 July 2006 11:03, Andrew Morton wrote: > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.17/2.6.17 > >-mm6/ > > Doesn't boot reliably as an x86-64 kernel on my X2 system, 3/4 times it oopses > horribly. Is there some way to supress an oops flood so I can get a decent > picture of it with vga=extended? Right now I get two useless oopses after the > first (probably useful) one. Try adding `pause_on_oops=100000' to the kernel boot command line. > The one time I did get it to boot, I get a lockdep problem (possibly already > reported, if so I'm sorry); > > ============================================= > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > --------------------------------------------- > mount/1095 is trying to acquire lock: > (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [] > xfs_ilock+0x67/0xa0 > > but task is already holding lock: > (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [] > xfs_ilock+0x67/0xa0 > > other info that might help us debug this: > 2 locks held by mount/1095: > #0: (&inode->i_mutex){--..}, at: [] mutex_lock+0x25/0x30 > #1: (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){----}, at: [] > xfs_ilock+0x67/0xa0 > > stack backtrace: > > Call Trace: > [] show_trace+0xae/0x280 > [] dump_stack+0x15/0x20 > [] __lock_acquire+0x936/0xcd0 > [] lock_acquire+0x88/0xc0 > [] down_write+0x39/0x50 > [] xfs_ilock+0x67/0xa0 > [] xfs_iget+0x2da/0x760 > [] xfs_trans_iget+0xc4/0x150 > [] xfs_ialloc+0x9e/0x4d0 > [] xfs_dir_ialloc+0x7f/0x2d0 > [] xfs_create+0x364/0x6d0 > [] xfs_vn_mknod+0x16a/0x300 > [] xfs_vn_create+0xb/0x10 > [] vfs_create+0x8d/0xf0 > [] open_namei+0x1c2/0x700 > [] do_filp_open+0x22/0x50 > [] do_sys_open+0x5a/0xf0 > [] sys_open+0x1b/0x20 > [] system_call+0x7e/0x83 > [<000000337b1ac6e2>] > XFS mounting filesystem sdb1 That could be deliberate nesting of the same lock in XFS. Or it could be a false-positive due to an earlier oops.