On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 10:47 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > Hi Trond, > > I got these errors when testing writeback, did you see it before? > (I've removed all local changes to NFS code..) > > Thanks, > Fengguang > --- > [ 15.463942] XFS (sda5): Mounting Filesystem > [ 15.468446] XFS: Mounting Filesystem > [ 15.548984] XFS (sda5): Ending clean mount > [ 15.553347] XFS: Ending clean mount > [ 89.917428] BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#3, flush-0:24/2548 > [ 89.923647] lock: ffff8801223c9240, .magic: dead4ead, .owner: flush-0:24/2548, .owner_cpu: 3 > [ 89.932677] Pid: 2548, comm: flush-0:24 Not tainted 2.6.39-rc3-dt7+ #175 > [ 89.939649] Call Trace: > [ 89.942356] [<ffffffff813b3d2d>] spin_bug+0x9c/0xa3 > [ 89.947584] [<ffffffff813b3e1b>] do_raw_spin_lock+0x47/0x137 > [ 89.953600] [<ffffffff818f97fb>] _raw_spin_lock+0x56/0x69 > [ 89.959345] [<ffffffff8115d388>] ? __mark_inode_dirty+0x66/0x1d0 > [ 89.965734] [<ffffffff8115d388>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x66/0x1d0 > [ 89.971952] [<ffffffff81238955>] nfs_commit_inode+0xf1/0x1c1 > [ 89.978022] [<ffffffff81238a63>] nfs_write_inode+0x3e/0x93 > [ 89.983913] [<ffffffff818fa1a3>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x2f > [ 89.990068] [<ffffffff8115c8de>] writeback_single_inode+0x17a/0x267 > [ 89.996739] [<ffffffff8115cdac>] writeback_sb_inodes+0xcf/0x157 > [ 90.003032] [<ffffffff8115d7a2>] writeback_inodes_wb+0x131/0x143 > [ 90.009415] [<ffffffff8115da2e>] wb_writeback+0x27a/0x3c3 > [ 90.015166] [<ffffffff8115dd32>] wb_do_writeback+0x1bb/0x1d6 > [ 90.021206] [<ffffffff8115ddd8>] bdi_writeback_thread+0x8b/0x212 > [ 90.027572] [<ffffffff8115dd4d>] ? wb_do_writeback+0x1d6/0x1d6 > [ 90.033758] [<ffffffff8108c4cc>] kthread+0x8e/0x96 > [ 90.038906] [<ffffffff81901ee4>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > [ 90.045115] [<ffffffff818fa414>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13 > [ 90.051494] [<ffffffff8108c43e>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x5b/0x5b > [ 90.058047] [<ffffffff81901ee0>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13 Hi Fengguang, Are you testing with a kernel that contains commit 0d88f6e804c824454b5ed0d3034ed3dcf7467a87 (nfs: don't call __mark_inode_dirty while holding i_lock)? The locking scheme for __mark_inode_dirty was changed in commit 250df6ed274d767da844a5d9f05720b804240197 (in the 2.6.39 merge window), but as far as I can tell all the NFS users of that function should now have now been fixed except for the case of one pNFS user for which I do have a patch in my 'bugfixes' branch on linux-nfs.org. Cheers Trond -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer NetApp Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx www.netapp.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
