| To: | Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: lockdep annotations? |
| From: | Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 3 Sep 2007 08:33:36 +0200 (CEST) |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <46DB7586.7040309@xxxxxxx> |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.0.999.0709012300030.6640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <46DB7586.7040309@xxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: This is a locking inversion between the iolock and iprune_mutex. I hadn't seen this one before. Was your system running low on memory at the time? Usually, this might be the case, as lockdep reports only once and when it does it's usually the morning after the last reboot, when a script runs the backups (so the box is under load, probably memory pressure involved). However, this time I don't remember memory consuming tasks running. Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce this yet... thanks for your explanations, Christian. -- BOFH excuse #321: Scheduled global CPU outage |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] ensure file size is logged on synchronous writes, Lachlan McIlroy |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] log replay should not overwrite newer ondisk inodes, David Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: lockdep annotations?, Lachlan McIlroy |
| Next by Thread: | Re: lockdep annotations?, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |