Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:47:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-r574664 (2007-09-11) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.0-r574664 Received: from cuda.sgi.com ([192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m7C2lGGD007345 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:47:17 -0700 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1218509310-6d43039d0000-NocioJ X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 5E8FC19B3C80 for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id AsRf5vNaIsDDXFnB for ; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:48:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Liberator.local (dsl-dynamic-209-50-31-17.inebraska.com [209.50.31.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sandeen.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16AA7AC358E; Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:48:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <48A0F9FC.1070805@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:48:28 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Walsh CC: LKML , xfs-oss X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: Lock debugging noise or real problem? Subject: Re: Lock debugging noise or real problem? References: <48A093A7.40606@tlinx.org> <48A09CA9.9080705@sandeen.net> <48A0F686.2090700@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: <48A0F686.2090700@tlinx.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: sandeen.net[209.173.210.139] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1218509311 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-2.02 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=2.1 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.83701 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/6021/Wed Feb 27 15:55:48 2008 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 17488 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: sandeen@sandeen.net Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs 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://www.google.com/search?q=xfs_fsr+dio_get_page+lockdep -> 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. -Eric