From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q657hB4O042565 for ; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 02:43:17 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (173-166-109-252-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.109.252]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id tC7FdO8bsG8tjPFD (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 03:43:07 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: 3.5.0-rc5: inconsistent lock state Message-ID: <20120705074307.GA28127@infradead.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christian Kujau Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 12:13:32PM -0700, Christian Kujau wrote: > Hi, > > this powerpc machine is running 3.5.0-rc5 for 2 days now and this happened > today: See my "do not take the iolock in inode reclaim context" series from yesterday, which should take care of this. Btw, if you hit this it's a sign you have out of the inode attributes, so if this isn't just a single inode with them you might be better off using larger inodes. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs