Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:58:38PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 03:42:16PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote: >> > Bisected to: >> > dd509097cb0b76d3836385f80d6b2d6fd3b97757 is first bad commit >> > commit dd509097cb0b76d3836385f80d6b2d6fd3b97757 >> > Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx> >> > Date: Mon Sep 29 14:56:40 2008 +1000 >> > >> > [XFS] Unlock inode before calling xfs_idestroy() >> > >> > Lock debugging reported the ilock was being destroyed without being >> > unlocked. We don't need to lock the inode until we are going to insert it >> > into the radix tree. >> >> Ah, OK, I see the problem, though I don't understand why I'm not >> seeing the might_sleep() triggering all the time given that I always >> build with: >> >> $ grep SLEEP .config >> CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP=y >> >> Basically the above commit moved xfs_ilock() inside >> radix_tree_preload()/radix_tree_preload_end(), which means we are >> taking a rwsem() while we have an elevated preempt count. I'll >> get a patch out to fix it. > > Patch below (against the xfs master/linux-next branch) should fix the > regression. I've just started QA on it. Can you please check that > it works for you, Alexander? Ran into the same problem, the fix worked for me. Thank you. Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
