From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755919Ab0JEQxv (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:53:51 -0400 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:39754 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755776Ab0JEQxu (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:53:50 -0400 Message-ID: <4CAB5874.9060106@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:55:16 +0200 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Torsten Kaiser CC: Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , Yang Ruirui , Andrew Morton , xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alex Elder 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> <4CAB5779.5020901@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4CAB5779.5020901@kernel.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:53:03 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/05/2010 06:51 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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. Ah, okay, David already looked into it and concluded it to be a spurious one. Can you please attach full kernel message of the lockup? Thanks. -- tejun