Dave, I am sorry for delay.
On 10/10, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> So, it's time to waste more time explaining why lockdep is telling
> us about something that *isn't a bug*.
> [... snip ...]
OK, thanks. I am not surprised although I have to admit I wasn't sure.
> Basically, what we are seeing here i
On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 06:14:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/08, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 07:15:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- x/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > +++ x/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > @@ -245,7 +245,8 @@ xfs_trans_alloc(
> > >
On 10/08, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 07:15:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- x/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > +++ x/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > @@ -245,7 +245,8 @@ xfs_trans_alloc(
> > > > atomic_inc(&mp->m_active_trans);
> > > >
> > > > tp = kmem_
On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 07:15:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/07, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > Probably false positive? Although when I look at the comment above
> > > xfs_sync_sb()
> > > I think that may be sometging lik
On 10/07, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Probably false positive? Although when I look at the comment above
> > xfs_sync_sb()
> > I think that may be sometging like below makes sense, but I know absolutely
> > nothing
> > about fs/ and X
On 10/06, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:48:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Johannes is already looking into this
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161004093216.ga21...@cmpxchg.org
> >
> > On Tue 04-10-16 13:43:43, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > because of kernel bug:
> > >
> >
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Probably false positive? Although when I look at the comment above
> xfs_sync_sb()
> I think that may be sometging like below makes sense, but I know absolutely
> nothing
> about fs/ and XFS in particular.
>
> Oleg.
>
>
> --- x/f
On 10/05, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 10/05, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > plus the following warnings:
> > >
> > > [ 1894.500040] run fstests generic/070 at 2016-10-04 05:03:39
> > > [ 1895.076655] =
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:48:00PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Johannes is already looking into this
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20161004093216.ga21...@cmpxchg.org
>
> On Tue 04-10-16 13:43:43, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > because of kernel bug:
> >
> > [ 2730.242537] run fstests generic/274 at 2
On Wed 05-10-16 18:44:32, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/05, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > plus the following warnings:
> > >
> > > [ 1894.500040] run fstests generic/070 at 2016-10-04 05:03:39
> > > [ 1895.076655] ===
On 10/05, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > plus the following warnings:
> >
> > [ 1894.500040] run fstests generic/070 at 2016-10-04 05:03:39
> > [ 1895.076655] =
> > [ 1895.077136] [ INFO: incon
On 10/05, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 06:58:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I removed this test and then the next run (after reboot) hangs at xfs/073
> > with
> > a lot of errors in dmesg like
> >
> > XFS (loop2): Failing async write on buffer block 0x9600790. Retrying
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 06:58:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> I removed this test and then the next run (after reboot) hangs at xfs/073 with
> a lot of errors in dmesg like
>
> XFS (loop2): Failing async write on buffer block 0x9600790. Retrying
> async write.
> blk_update_request:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 01:43:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 10/03, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:14:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 09/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Jan, I gave up.
> > > >
> > > > W
On 10/04, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> This time it hangs after generic/274:
>
> --- tests/generic/274.out 2016-10-04 04:23:24.209006171 -0400
> +++ /root/XFS/xfstests-dev/results//generic/274.out.bad 2016-10-04
> 05:17:49.291742498 -0400
> @@ -3,3 +3,4 @@
> preallocation
On 10/03, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:14:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems that generic/001 just hangs on my laptop. With or without this
> > > change.
> > > Or perhaps I didn't wait enough...
> >
> > /usr/bin/awk
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 07:14:34PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 09/27, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > You can run either:
> > >
> > > ./check -g freeze
> >
> > passed all 6 tests.
> >
> > > to check just the freezing tests or
> > >
> > > ./check
> > >
> >
On 09/27, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 09/27, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > You can run either:
> >
> > ./check -g freeze
>
> passed all 6 tests.
>
> > to check just the freezing tests or
> >
> > ./check
> >
> > to run all sensible tests which is what I'd do (but it will take couple of
> > hours t
On 09/27, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Mon 26-09-16 18:55:25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Heh ;) if only I knew how to test this... I ran the following script
> > under qemu
> >
> > mkfs.xfs -f /dev/vda
> > mkfs.xfs -f /dev/vdb
> >
> > mkdir -p TEST SCRATCH
> >
> > TEST_DEV=/dev/vda TEST
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 08:51:35AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 26-09-16 18:55:25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/26, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon 26-09-16 18:08:06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Tell lockdep we are holding these locks before we call
> > > > ->unfreeze_fs(s
On Mon 26-09-16 18:55:25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/26, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 26-09-16 18:08:06, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Tell lockdep we are holding these locks before we call
> > > ->unfreeze_fs(sb).
> > > + */
> > > +static void sb_freeze_acquire(struct super_block *
21 matches
Mail list logo
