On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 01:51:18AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 09:13:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 05:01:00AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > I'm pleased to announce I have a git tree up of my vfs scalability work. > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git > > > > > > Branch vfs-scale-working > > > > I've got a couple of patches needed to build XFS - they shrinker > > merge left some bad fragments - I'll post them in a minute. This > > OK cool. > > > > email is for the longest ever lockdep warning I've seen that > > occurred on boot. > > Ah thanks. OK that was one of my attempts to keep sockets out of > hidding the vfs as much as possible (lazy inode number evaluation). > Not a big problem, but I'll drop the patch for now. > > I have just got one for you too, btw :) (on vanilla kernel but it is > messing up my lockdep stress testing on xfs). Real or false? > > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 2.6.35-rc5-00064-ga9f7f2e #334 > ------------------------------------------------------- > kswapd0/605 is trying to acquire lock: > (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){++++--}, at: [<ffffffff8125500c>] > xfs_ilock+0x7c/0xa0 > > but task is already holding lock: > (&xfs_mount_list_lock){++++.-}, at: [<ffffffff81281a76>] > xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0xc6/0x140 False positive, but the xfs_mount_list_lock is gone in 2.6.35-rc6 - the shrinker context change has fixed that - so you can ignore it anyway. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>