locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)

locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)

[Jesper Juhl]

I've got a server running 2.6.11.11 that just reported the following in dmesg :

locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711
0-9223372036854775807 type=1)

Should I worry?
Any info I can provide that would be useful?

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)

[Jesper Juhl]

On 10/08/06, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got a server running 2.6.11.11 that just reported the following in dmesg :
>
> locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711
> 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
>
Still getting lots of these :

Aug 15 13:53:01 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
lock (pid=3 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
Aug 12 22:46:31 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
lock (pid=1036 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
Aug 12 00:21:28 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
lock (pid=1020 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)

What's the exact meaning of this?
> Should I worry?
> Any info I can provide that would be useful?


-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)

[Jesper Juhl]

On 15/08/06, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/08/06, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've got a server running 2.6.11.11 that just reported the following in dmesg :
> >
> > locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711
> > 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
> >
> Still getting lots of these :
>
> Aug 15 13:53:01 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
> lock (pid=3 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
> Aug 12 22:46:31 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
> lock (pid=1036 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
> Aug 12 00:21:28 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
> lock (pid=1020 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
>
> What's the exact meaning of this?
> > Should I worry?
> > Any info I can provide that would be useful?
>

I guess I should add a few people who might know something to Cc:
instead of only sending to LKML ;-)

The server that generates these log messages is serving up a few
terrabytes of data via NFS to some tens of clients - in case that's
relevant.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:02:50PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 15/08/06, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 10/08/06, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I've got a server running 2.6.11.11 that just reported the following in 
> >dmesg :
> >>
> >> locks_insert_block: removing duplicated lock (pid=2711
> >> 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
> >>
> >Still getting lots of these :
> >
> >Aug 15 13:53:01 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
> >lock (pid=3 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
> >Aug 12 22:46:31 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
> >lock (pid=1036 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
> >Aug 12 00:21:28 server kernel: locks_insert_block: removing duplicated
> >lock (pid=1020 0-9223372036854775807 type=1)
> >
> >What's the exact meaning of this?

I *think* that's harmless in that version of the code, though I'm not
sure.

Trond's made a bunch of lockd fixes since then (e.g. 09c7938c), which
probably fix it.

And that printk has been changed to a BUG(), so it better not be
triggered any more....  I certainly don't see how it could happen in the
current code.

--b.