| To: | Christian Kujau <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 3.14.0-rc2: WARNING: at mm/slub.c:1007 |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:14:53 +1100 |
| Cc: | LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <alpine.DEB.2.19.4.1402131531290.6233@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <alpine.DEB.2.19.4.1402131144390.6233@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140213222602.GK13997@dastard> <alpine.DEB.2.19.4.1402131531290.6233@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 03:34:19PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 at 09:26, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > after upgrading from 3.13-rc8 to 3.14.0-rc2 on this PowerPC G4 machine, > > > the WARNING below was printed. > > > > > > Shortly after, a lockdep warning appeared (possibly related to my > > > post to the XFS list yesterday[0]). > > > > Unlikely. > > OK, so the "possible irq lock inversion dependency detected" is a lockdep > regression, as you explained in the xfs-list thread. What about the > "RECLAIM_FS-safe -> RECLAIM_FS-unsafe lock order detected" warning - I > haven't seen it again though, only once with 3.14.0-rc2. That was also an i_lock/mmapsem issue, so it's likely to be the same root cause. I'm testing a fix for it at the moment. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH V3] xfs: skip verification on initial "guess" superblock read, Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 3.14.0-rc2: WARNING: at mm/slub.c:1007, Christian Kujau |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 3.14.0-rc2: WARNING: at mm/slub.c:1007, Christian Kujau |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 3.14.0-rc2: WARNING: at mm/slub.c:1007, Christian Kujau |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |