lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: VFS scalability git tree
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 01:51:18AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 09:13:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 05:01:00AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > I'm pleased to announce I have a git tree up of my vfs scalability work.
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/npiggin/linux-npiggin.git
> > >
> > > Branch vfs-scale-working
> >
> > I've got a couple of patches needed to build XFS - they shrinker
> > merge left some bad fragments - I'll post them in a minute. This
>
> OK cool.
>
>
> > email is for the longest ever lockdep warning I've seen that
> > occurred on boot.
>
> Ah thanks. OK that was one of my attempts to keep sockets out of
> hidding the vfs as much as possible (lazy inode number evaluation).
> Not a big problem, but I'll drop the patch for now.
>
> I have just got one for you too, btw :) (on vanilla kernel but it is
> messing up my lockdep stress testing on xfs). Real or false?
>
> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> 2.6.35-rc5-00064-ga9f7f2e #334
> -------------------------------------------------------
> kswapd0/605 is trying to acquire lock:
> (&(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock){++++--}, at: [<ffffffff8125500c>]
> xfs_ilock+0x7c/0xa0
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&xfs_mount_list_lock){++++.-}, at: [<ffffffff81281a76>]
> xfs_reclaim_inode_shrink+0xc6/0x140

False positive, but the xfs_mount_list_lock is gone in 2.6.35-rc6 -
the shrinker context change has fixed that - so you can ignore it
anyway.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-24 02:23    [W:0.317 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site