On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 04:13:50PM -0800, Daniel McNeil wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 11:45, Ken Preslan wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 03:08:00PM -0800, Daniel McNeil wrote: > > > Looking at the stack trace above and dissabling dlm.ko, > it looks like dlm_lock+0x319 is the call to dlm_lock_stage1(). > looking at dlm_lock_stage1(), it looks like it is sleeping on > down_write(&rsb->res_lock) > > So now I have to find who is holding the res_lock. That's consistent with the hang you reported before - in fact it's almost certainly the same thing. My guess is thet there is a dealock on res_lock somewhere . In which case I suspect it's going to be easier to find that one by reading code rather than running tests. res_lock should never be held for any extended period of time, but in your last set of tracebacks there was nothing obviously holding it - so I suspect something is sleeping with it. Patrick
