From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Next March 25: Boot failure on powerpc [recursive locking detected] Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:42:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20090327064208.GQ27476@kernel.dk> References: <20090325191229.0e17eaf6.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <49CA3BF4.3050801@in.ibm.com> <49CB2200.50703@in.ibm.com> <1238075403.3342.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090327165624.47a29945.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:59763 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751020AbZC0GmM (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:42:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090327165624.47a29945.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: James Bottomley , Sachin Sant , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi , Benjamin Herrenschmidt On Fri, Mar 27 2009, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:50:03 -0500 James Bottomley wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 12:04 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote: > > > Sachin Sant wrote: > > > > Today's next failed to boot on a powerpc box > > > > (Power6 blade IBM,7998-61X) with following recursive locking message. > > > > > > > > ============================================= > > > > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] > > > > 2.6.29-next-20090325 #1 > > > After bisecting the failure seems to be because of the following > > > patch from James ( block: move SCSI timeout check into block ) > > > > > > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8017/ > > > > > > If i back out the above mentioned patch, the machine boots fine > > > without any problems. > > > > Yes, that patch already got dropped for other reasons: > > > > http://marc.info/?t=123740773700002 > > > > I'm going to see if I can redo it in a better way, since moving this > > type of timeout checking from scsi to block is a useful generalisation. > > I will revert it from next-20090327 as well as it is still in the > for-next branch of the block tree. I'll update for-next, sorry about that. I had dropped it from for-2.6.30, but forgot to update akpm/next branches. -- Jens Axboe