Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753449Ab3FZXYc (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:24:32 -0400 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.129]:24489 "EHLO ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753102Ab3FZXYb (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:24:31 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjQPADl3y1F5LKwQ/2dsb2JhbABbgwmDF7c5hSkEAYEEF3SCIwEBBAE6HCMQCAMOCgklDwUlAyETiAgFuhYWjXEngR0HgwJhA5dEih+HJ4MjKoEs Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:24:26 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Michal Hocko Cc: Glauber Costa , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML Subject: Re: linux-next: slab shrinkers: BUG at mm/list_lru.c:92 Message-ID: <20130626232426.GA29034@dastard> References: <20130617151403.GA25172@localhost.localdomain> <20130617143508.7417f1ac9ecd15d8b2877f76@linux-foundation.org> <20130617223004.GB2538@localhost.localdomain> <20130618024623.GP29338@dastard> <20130618063104.GB20528@localhost.localdomain> <20130618082414.GC13677@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130618104443.GH13677@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130618135025.GK13677@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20130625022754.GP29376@dastard> <20130626081509.GF28748@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130626081509.GF28748@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2580 Lines: 59 On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:15:09AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Tue 25-06-13 12:27:54, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:50:25PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > And again, another hang. It looks like the inode deletion never > > > finishes. The good thing is that I do not see any LRU related BUG_ONs > > > anymore. I am going to test with the other patch in the thread. > > > > > > 2476 [] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0x9e/0xc0 <<< waiting for an inode to go away > > > [] find_inode_fast+0xa1/0xc0 > > > [] iget_locked+0x4f/0x180 > > > [] ext4_iget+0x33/0x9f0 > > > [] ext4_lookup+0xbc/0x160 > > > [] lookup_real+0x20/0x60 > > > [] lookup_open+0x175/0x1d0 > > > [] do_last+0x2de/0x780 <<< holds i_mutex > > > [] path_openat+0xda/0x400 > > > [] do_filp_open+0x43/0xa0 > > > [] do_sys_open+0x160/0x1e0 > > > [] sys_open+0x1c/0x20 > > > [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > [] 0xffffffffffffffff > > > > I don't think this has anything to do with LRUs. > > I am not claiming that. It might be a timing issue which never mattered > but it is strange I can reproduce this so easily and repeatedly with the > shrinkers patchset applied. > As I said earlier, this might be breakage in my -mm tree as well > (missing some patch which didn't go via Andrew or misapplied patch). The > situation is worsen by the state of linux-next which has some unrelated > issues. > > I really do not want to delay the whole patchset just because of some > problem on my side. Do you have any tree that I should try to test? No, I've just been testing Glauber's tree and sending patches for problems back to him based on it. > > I won't have seen this on XFS stress testing, because it doesn't use > > the VFS inode hashes for inode lookups. Given that XFS is not > > triggering either problem you are seeing, that makes me think > > I haven't tested with xfs. That might be worthwhile if you can easily do that - another data point indicating a hang or absence of a hang will help point us in the right direction here... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/