On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 03:44:03PM -0400, Nick Bowler wrote: > Just saw this on 2.6.39-rc2 after half a day or so of uptime. I've > never seen it before today so it may be a regression from 2.6.38. > Nothing seems have failed as a result. Please let me know if you > need any more info. >
Could you try this patch. I know it may be hard to reproduce, but the issue is that we are recursing down the locks in a tree/list and we changed a lock from being nested to being a parent. This patch tells lockdep about what we did. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> diff --git a/fs/autofs4/expire.c b/fs/autofs4/expire.c index 450f529..1feb68e 100644 --- a/fs/autofs4/expire.c +++ b/fs/autofs4/expire.c @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ start: /* Negative dentry - try next */ if (!simple_positive(q)) { spin_unlock(&p->d_lock); + lock_set_subclass(&q->d_lock.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_); p = q; goto again; } @@ -186,6 +187,7 @@ again: /* Negative dentry - try next */ if (!simple_positive(ret)) { spin_unlock(&p->d_lock); + lock_set_subclass(&ret->d_lock.dep_map, 0, _RET_IP_); p = ret; goto again; } _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs