On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 04:29:22PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Torsten Kaiser
> <just.for.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Torsten Kaiser
> > <just.for.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I will keep LOCKDEP enabled on that system, and if there really is
> >> another splat, I will report back here. But I rather doubt that this
> >> will be needed.
> >
> > After the patch, I did not see this problem again, but today I found
> > another LOCKDEP report that also looks XFS related.
> > I found it twice in the logs, and as both were slightly different, I
> > will attach both versions.
>
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104353] 3.7.0-rc4 #1 Not tainted
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104355] inconsistent
> > {RECLAIM_FS-ON-W} -> {IN-RECLAIM_FS-W} usage.
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104430] CPU0
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104431] ----
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104432] lock(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock);
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104433] <Interrupt>
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104434]
> > lock(&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock);
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104435]
> > Nov 6 21:57:09 thoregon kernel: [ 9941.104435] *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> Sorry! Copied the wrong report. Your fix only landed in -rc5, so my
> vanilla -rc4 did (also) report the old problem again.
> And I copy&pasted that report instead of the second appearance of the
> new problem.
Can you repost it with line wrapping turned off? The output simply
becomes unreadable when it wraps....
Yeah, I know I can put it back together, but I've got better things
to do with my time than stitch a couple of hundred lines of debug
back into a readable format....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
