On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:16:40PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 08:09:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:28:00PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > Plain 6.4.0-rc2 with a relatively minor change to the futex code that > > > I cannot believe was in any way responsible for this. > > > > > > kworkers blocked all over the place. Some on XFS_ILOCK_EXCL. Some on > > > xfs_buf_lock. One in xfs_btree_split() calling wait_for_completion. > > > > > > This was an overnight test run that is now dead, so I can't get any > > > more info from the locked up kernel. I have the vmlinux if some > > > decoding of offsets is useful. > > > > This is likely the same AGF try-lock bug that was discovered in this > > thread: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/202305090905.aff4e0e6-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > The fact that the try-lock was ignored means that out of order AGF > > locking can be attempted, and the try-lock prevents deadlocks from > > occurring. > > > > Can you try the patch below - I was going to send it for review > > anyway this morning so it can't hurt to see if it also fixes this > > issue. > > I still have this patch in my tree and it's not in rc5. Was this > problem fixed some other way, or does it still need to land upstream? > I don't see any changes to XFS since May 11th's pull request. Seems to have landed in for-next last night? https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=00dcd17cfa7f103f7d640ffd34645a2ddab96330 --D
