[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Lock debugging noise or real problem?

To: Linda Walsh <lkml@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Lock debugging noise or real problem?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:48:28 -0500
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <48A0F686.2090700@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <48A093A7.40606@xxxxxxxxx> <48A09CA9.9080705@xxxxxxxxxxx> <48A0F686.2090700@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20080707)
Linda Walsh wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> the explanation for xfs_fsr, at least, is the same as the last time you
>> brought it up ;)
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/12/86
>> -Eric
> ---
> Ah...Looks like the 1st xfs_fsr prob is the same as the one 6 months 
> ago...(sorry)
>     xfs_ilock & xfs_ilock
> But... the 3 imapds and the sort process were all 4 holding
>      xfs_ilock     &    shrink_icache_memory
> And the other two xfs_fsr's were holding different locks than the 
> 6-month-ago bug:
>     dio_get_page   &   xfs_ilock

> Are these the same as well?
> I.e. looks like 3 possibly different probs:
>     #1 (same as 6 months ago)...
>     #2 (3)imapds & sort:      holding   xfs_ilock   &  shrink_icache
>     #3 xfs_fsr with two different locks:      dio_get_page   &   xfs_ilock> 


-> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-01/msg00042.html

I haven't looked closely at #2 but there have been so many lockdep
reports for xfs, and so many explanations of why they don't always get
along, you'll probably be able to find something with some searching.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>