Hi again, yes, i had 2.6.19 on this machine, too. but the partition got rerformatted after switching to 2.6.20, cryptcompres is disabled. i think i found the bug in the meantime.
From: Frederik Deweerdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:02:00PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.20-rc3/2.6.20-rc3-mm1/ Hi, The reiser4-sb_sync_inodes.patch, which goal is to: "This patch moves spin_lock/spin_unlock down to sync_sb_inodes." Only really moved the spin_unlock, thus triggering the following lockdep message: [ 65.267402] ===================================== [ 65.267508] [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ] [ 65.267563] ------------------------------------- [ 65.267619] swapper/0 is trying to release lock (inode_lock) at: [ 65.267751] [<c018f573>] generic_sync_sb_inodes+0xa6/0x2e8 [ 65.267853] but there are no more locks to release! [ 65.267908] [ 65.267909] other info that might help us debug this: [ 65.268014] 1 lock held by swapper/0: [ 65.268068] #0: (&type->s_umount_key){--..}, at: [<c0174c18>] alloc_super+0xe8/0x1a5 [ 65.268330] [ 65.268330] stack backtrace: [ 65.268433] [<c010390d>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30 [ 65.268528] [<c0103935>] show_trace+0x12/0x14 [ 65.268621] [<c0103a2f>] dump_stack+0x16/0x18 [ 65.268714] [<c013b2a0>] print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0xce/0xd8 [ 65.268811] [<c013b39b>] lock_release_non_nested+0x6f/0x172 [ 65.268907] [<c013b4d2>] lock_release_nested+0x34/0xdc [ 65.269001] [<c013b5ce>] __lock_release+0x54/0x56 [ 65.269095] [<c013b809>] lock_release+0x46/0x60 [ 65.269188] [<c03e8660>] _spin_unlock+0x16/0x40 [ 65.269284] [<c018f573>] generic_sync_sb_inodes+0xa6/0x2e8 [ 65.269379] [<c018f7d5>] sync_sb_inodes+0x20/0x23 [ 65.269472] [<c018f937>] sync_inodes_sb+0x82/0x8a [ 65.269566] [<c0174eab>] __fsync_super+0xd/0x84 [ 65.269659] [<c0174f2d>] fsync_super+0xb/0x19 [ 65.269753] [<c017558a>] do_remount_sb+0x30/0xee [ 65.269846] [<c0175aa2>] get_sb_single+0x66/0x8b [ 65.269940] [<c01b45c1>] sysfs_get_sb+0x1d/0x2c [ 65.270036] [<c0175b49>] vfs_kern_mount+0x82/0xfb [ 65.270130] [<c0175c19>] kern_mount+0x16/0x1d [ 65.270223] [<c055ddb6>] sysfs_init+0x57/0xad [ 65.270319] [<c055c8d2>] mnt_init+0xbf/0x13b [ 65.270412] [<c055c555>] vfs_caches_init+0x97/0xa7 [ 65.270506] [<c0544bd4>] start_kernel+0x1ca/0x261 [ 65.270600] [<00000000>] 0x0 [ 65.270691] ======================= Regards, Frederik Signed-off-by: Frederik Deweerdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/fs-writeback.c | 2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+) diff -puN fs/fs-writeback.c~reiser4-sb_sync_inodes-fix fs/fs-writeback.c --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c~reiser4-sb_sync_inodes-fix +++ a/fs/fs-writeback.c @@ -317,6 +317,8 @@ int generic_sync_sb_inodes(struct super_ const unsigned long start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */ int ret = 0; + spin_lock(&inode_lock); + if (!wbc->for_kupdate || list_empty(&sb->s_io)) list_splice_init(&sb->s_dirty, &sb->s_io); _ since i applied this patch ontop of yours, the error didnt accour anymore. Greetings Juergen Ingo Bormuth wrote: > > On 2007-02-09 23:26, squadra wrote: >> i m getting lots of errormessages with the 2.6.20 patch, it looks to me >> like >> they start when i copy files from a reiser4 partition, to a ext3. > > Hi, thanks for your report. > > * Did you use 2.6.19 on that machine before? Any problems with it? > * Do you use reiser4 cryptocmpress? > > I'm running two system using my original 2.6.20-patch. > There wasn't a single problem (even under heavy io). > > I just created an ext3 partition and filled it up with files from reiser4. > What did you actually do to trigger the errors? Cryptocompress? > > > Ingo > > -- > Ingo Bormuth, voicebox & fax: +49-(0)-12125-10226517 > public key 86326EC9, http://ibormuth.efil.de/contact > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-patch--reiser4-for-2.6.20-tf3172392.html#a8901836 Sent from the ReiserFS - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
