Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757372AbYHNBEi (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:04:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754949AbYHNBEa (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:04:30 -0400 Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org ([64.81.245.74]:59755 "EHLO ishtar.tlinx.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754924AbYHNBEa (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:04:30 -0400 Message-ID: <48A38490.7090604@tlinx.org> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:04:16 -0700 From: Linda Walsh User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xfs-oss , LKML , Eric Sandeen , Dave Chinner Subject: Re: XFS Lock debugging noise or real problem? References: <48A093A7.40606@tlinx.org> <48A09CA9.9080705@sandeen.net> <48A0F686.2090700@tlinx.org> <48A0F9FC.1070805@sandeen.net> <48A20E9E.9090100@tlinx.org> <20080813005852.GW6119@disturbed> <48A35A99.1080300@tlinx.org> <20080814004101.GE6119@disturbed> In-Reply-To: <20080814004101.GE6119@disturbed> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1435 Lines: 40 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 -- 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/