Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:04:16 -0700 | From | Linda Walsh <> | Subject | Re: XFS Lock debugging noise or real problem? |
| |
Dave Chinner wrote: > I've asked the lockdep ppl to treat stuff like memory reclaim and > the iprune_mutex specially because of this recursive calling nature > of memory reclaim, but so far nothing has happened.... --- So it's really a kernel bug, not an XFS bug...(?)
> FWIW, I think that recent changes have resulted in the xfs_fsr case > (swap_extents) being annotated properly so that one should go > away. --- If it was limited to xfs_fsr, that'd be tolerable -- but its cropping up in random user-level-apps (imaps, sort, et al).
> Well, any debugging code is really designed for test and dev systems, > not for production systems..... --- The lock-correctness code is described as a feature to provide "provability". It's not called "debugging" and I don't regard that as "debugging" -- but something that any production system that wants operational integrity over a minor 'speed hit', would "theoretically" want.
If it is "debug" code, it should be labeled as such -- but code that can mathematically guarantee that parts of the kernel operate correctly seems like a _reliability_ feature, not a debugging feature.
Thanks for the insight -- very appreciated.
linda
| |