linux-kernel - Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1173297911.3769.3.camel@dyn9047017103.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 07 Mar 2007 12:05:11 -0800
From:	Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>,
	Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...elEye.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: qla2xxx BUG: workqueue leaked lock or atomic

On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 11:45 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:09:55 +0100 Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 20:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:37:22 +0100 Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On 16:18, Andre Noll wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > With 2.6.21-rc2 I am unable to reproduce this BUG message. However,
> > > > > writing to both raid systems at the same time via lvm still locks up
> > > > > the system within minutes.
> > > > 
> > > > Screenshot of the resulting kernel panic:
> > > > 
> > > > 	http://systemlinux.org/~maan/shots/kernel-panic-21-rc2-huangho2.png
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It died in CFQ.  Please try a different IO scheduler.  Use something
> > > like
> > > 
> > > 	echo deadline > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
> > > 
> > > This could still be the old qla2xxx bug, or it could be a new qla2xxx bug,
> > > or it could be a block bug, or it could be an LVM bug.
> > 
> > OK. I'm running with deadline right now. But I guess this kernel
> > panic was caused by an LVM bug because lockdep reported problems with
> > LVM. Nobody responded to my bug report on the LVM mailing list (see
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2007-February/msg00102.html).
> > 
> > Non-working snapshots and no help from the mailing list convinced me
> > to ditch the lvm setup [1] in favour of linear software raid. This
> > means I can't do lvm-related tests any more.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> > BTW: Are ext3 filesystem sizes greater than 8T now officially
> > supported?
> 
> I think so, but I don't know how much 16TB testing developers and
> distros are doing - perhaps the linux-ext4 denizens can tell us?
> -

IBM has done some testing (dbench, fsstress, fsx, tiobench, iozone etc)
on 10TB ext3, I think RedHat and BULL have done similar test on >8TB
ext3 too.

Mingming

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/