[Top] [All Lists]

Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c

To: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at kernel/rwsem.c:131 XFS?
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:06:02 +0200
Cc: lachlan@xxxxxxx, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20081022082550.GM18495@disturbed> (Dave Chinner's message of "Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:25:50 +1100")
References: <20081017165738.GA20818@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <a4423d670810171013g5bc19c1cm3f7d9c014ee70349@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081017203710.GA27187@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081017135510.7127c4e7@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <a4423d670810200758m3cea3841h40988afc8eaf81@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081020163327.GA15651@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <a4423d670810201013w6448cb38w402771799cefb5f5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081020223549.GA21152@disturbed> <a4423d670810210442y51b62fc2naf6cb649e6b26942@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081022075838.GK18495@disturbed> <20081022082550.GM18495@disturbed>
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)
Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:58:38PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 03:42:16PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> > Bisected to:
>> > dd509097cb0b76d3836385f80d6b2d6fd3b97757 is first bad commit
>> > commit dd509097cb0b76d3836385f80d6b2d6fd3b97757
>> > Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
>> > Date:   Mon Sep 29 14:56:40 2008 +1000
>> > 
>> >     [XFS] Unlock inode before calling xfs_idestroy()
>> > 
>> >     Lock debugging reported the ilock was being destroyed without being
>> >     unlocked. We don't need to lock the inode until we are going to insert 
>> > it
>> >     into the radix tree.
>> Ah, OK, I see the problem, though I don't understand why I'm not
>> seeing the might_sleep() triggering all the time given that I always
>> build with:
>> $ grep SLEEP .config
>> Basically the above commit moved xfs_ilock() inside
>> radix_tree_preload()/radix_tree_preload_end(), which means we are
>> taking a rwsem() while we have an elevated preempt count. I'll
>> get a patch out to fix it.
> Patch below (against the xfs master/linux-next branch) should fix the
> regression. I've just started QA on it. Can you please check that
> it works for you, Alexander?

Ran into the same problem, the fix worked for me.

Thank you.


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