Hi, On Mon, 2007-08-20 at 17:36 +0800, rae l wrote: > On 8/17/07, Steven Whitehouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > > the stack trace of the 'D' state `ls`: > > > > > > ======================= > > > ls D F89B83F8 2200 12018 1 (NOTLB) > > > f3eeadd4 00000082 f6a425c0 f89b83f8 f3eead9c f6a425d4 f6f32d80 > > > f573a93c > > > 00010000 f89b83f3 00000000 c40a2030 c3fa9fa0 c40aaa70 c40aab7c > > > 00000e89 > > > b2a4b036 000002e4 c40a2030 f3eeae1c 00000000 c3f85e98 f8e11e09 > > > f8e11e0e > > > Call Trace: > > > [<f89b83f8>] gdlm_bast+0x0/0x93 [lock_dlm] > > > [<f89b83f3>] gdlm_ast+0x0/0x5 [lock_dlm] > > > [<f8e11e09>] holder_wait+0x0/0x8 [gfs2] > > > [<f8e11e0e>] holder_wait+0x5/0x8 [gfs2] > > ^^^^ This function doesn't exist in recent kernels, so I > > guess you are using an older kernel. Which version is it? > Sorry for the late, > The kernel I'm testing is 2.6.21.7, just because our testing cluster > suite is from the last month when cluster-2.01 from here didn't come > out, > ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/cluster/releases/ > > So now we were keeping testing on kernel 2.6.21.y series, just for its > stability, I don't know how about the stability of 2.6.22.y, I haven't > tested it yet. > > So the problem I said has been fixed in later kernel after 2.6.22, > please feel free to let me know. > I suspect that it might have been, but I can't say for certain. We've fixed a number of things which look very similar, but not exactly like the bug you seem to have hit. In the latest Linus' kernels there is a fix for a problem in the DLM which it would be worth trying so if you are in a position to test something more recent, then I would suggest that as a first course of action.
Let me know if that doesn't solve the problem, Steve. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/