On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 03:51:29PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:00:21AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 20-06-13 17:12:01, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > I am bisecting it again. It is quite tedious, though, because good case > > > is hard to be sure about. > > > > OK, so now I converged to 2d4fc052 (inode: convert inode lru list to generic lru > > list code.) in my tree and I have double checked it matches what is in > > the linux-next. This doesn't help much to pin point the issue I am > > afraid :/ > > > Can you revert this patch (easiest way ATM is to rewind your tree to a point > right before it) and apply the following patch? > > As Dave has mentioned, it is very likely that this bug was already there, we > were just not ever checking imbalances. The attached patch would tell us at > least if the imbalance was there before. If this is the case, I would suggest > turning the BUG condition into a WARN_ON_ONCE since we would be officially > not introducing any regression. It is no less of a bug, though, and we should > keep looking for it. We probably should do that BUG->WARN change anyway. BUG_ON is pretty obnoxious in places where we can probably continue on without much impact.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>