[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081022082828.GN18495@disturbed>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:28:29 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>
Cc: lachlan@....com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/rwsem.c:131 XFS? (was: Re: linux-next: Tree for October 17)
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:21:23PM +0400, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
> > 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.
> Could it cause the I/O dead lock or should I continue trying to reproduce it?
The deadlock wouldn't be produced by the same thing that
produced the sleeping-in-atomic warning. The missed unlock that
I also fixed in the patch I just sent could possibly have caused
that, but I'm just speculating on that...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists