On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:53:20 -0700 Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote:Did you test with lockdep enabled? ============================================= [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] 2.6.23-rc7-mm1 #1 --------------------------------------------- swapper/1 is trying to acquire lock: (&writer->lock){--..}, at: [<c0197a32>] lock_and_coalesce_cpu_mnt_writer_counts+0x32/0x70 but task is already holding lock: (&writer->lock){--..}, at: [<c0197a32>] lock_and_coalesce_cpu_mnt_writer_counts+0x32/0x70 other info that might help us debug this: 1 lock held by swapper/1: #0: (&writer->lock){--..}, at: [<c0197a32>] lock_and_coalesce_cpu_mnt_writer_counts+0x32/0x70 stack backtrace: [<c0103ffa>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30 [<c0104b82>] show_trace+0x12/0x20 [<c0104c96>] dump_stack+0x16/0x20 [<c0144dc5>] __lock_acquire+0xde5/0x10a0 [<c01450fa>] lock_acquire+0x7a/0xa0 [<c03e734c>] _spin_lock+0x2c/0x40 [<c0197a32>] lock_and_coalesce_cpu_mnt_writer_counts+0x32/0x70 [<c01982c6>] mntput_no_expire+0x36/0xc0 [<c0188f15>] path_release_on_umount+0x15/0x20 [<c0198930>] sys_umount+0x40/0x230 [<c010070b>] name_to_dev_t+0x9b/0x270 [<c05230c2>] prepare_namespace+0x62/0x1b0 [<c05226ca>] kernel_init+0x21a/0x320 [<c0103b47>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10 ======================= It look like a false positive to me, but really, for a patchset of this complexity and maturity I cannot fathom how it could have escaped any lockdep testing. -
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Vu Pham | Re: [Scst-devel] Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Radu Rendec | Endianness problem with u32 classifier hash masks |
| Benjamin Herrenschmidt | [PATCH 0/11] ibm_newemac: Candidate patches for 2.6.25 |
