Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754195Ab1CYP6Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:58:25 -0400 Received: from ud10.udmedia.de ([194.117.254.50]:35053 "EHLO mail.ud10.udmedia.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754070Ab1CYP6Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:58:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:58:21 +0100 From: Markus Trippelsdorf To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Chris Mason Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Core block IO bits for 2.6.39 - early Oops Message-ID: <20110325155821.GA1661@gentoo.trippels.de> References: <20110325083757.GA1754@gentoo.trippels.de> <4D8C55D9.1060903@fusionio.com> <20110325095704.GA1694@gentoo.trippels.de> <4D8C8E1C.1020304@fusionio.com> <20110325130959.GA1698@gentoo.trippels.de> <4D8CA263.9090006@fusionio.com> <20110325141413.GA1725@gentoo.trippels.de> <4D8CA498.8060403@fusionio.com> <20110325142827.GA1739@gentoo.trippels.de> <4D8CBA0A.9040105@fusionio.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D8CBA0A.9040105@fusionio.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1406 Lines: 43 On 2011.03.25 at 16:51 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2011-03-25 15:28, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2011.03.25 at 15:20 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 2011-03-25 15:14, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >>> On 2011.03.25 at 15:10 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>> On 2011-03-25 14:09, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >>>>> On 2011.03.25 at 13:44 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>>>> On 2011-03-25 10:57, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Reverting it solves all problems here. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can you try this one? > >>>>> > >>>>> This one doesn't help; I still get the same BUG. > >>>>> > >>>>> BTW if you're having trouble reproducing this, here is the only non > >>>>> stock xfs option that I use on the affected partitions: > >>>>> > >>>>> noatime,logbsize=262144 > >>>> > >>>> This? > >>> > >>> No. > >> > >> Lets expand the scope a bit, this one? > > > > No. And setting CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE also doesn't help. > > > > Does this work? I'm actually relieved that the preempt was a red > herring. I had earlier convinced myself that it was all safe without > that mucking around with preempt counts. Finally: YES. Many thanks Jens. -- Markus -- 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/