From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: Next March 25: Boot failure on powerpc [recursive locking detected] Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:56:24 +1100 Message-ID: <20090327165624.47a29945.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20090325191229.0e17eaf6.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <49CA3BF4.3050801@in.ibm.com> <49CB2200.50703@in.ibm.com> <1238075403.3342.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Fri__27_Mar_2009_16_56_24_+1100_cOldlwHN2s6RDN+i" Return-path: Received: from chilli.pcug.org.au ([203.10.76.44]:36499 "EHLO smtps.tip.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102AbZC0F4m (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:56:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1238075403.3342.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jens Axboe Cc: James Bottomley , Sachin Sant , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi , Benjamin Herrenschmidt --Signature=_Fri__27_Mar_2009_16_56_24_+1100_cOldlwHN2s6RDN+i Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > [ 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 ) > >=20 > > http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8017/ > >=20 > > If i back out the above mentioned patch, the machine boots fine > > without any problems. >=20 > Yes, that patch already got dropped for other reasons: >=20 > http://marc.info/?t=3D123740773700002 >=20 > 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. --=20 Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/ --Signature=_Fri__27_Mar_2009_16_56_24_+1100_cOldlwHN2s6RDN+i Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknMaokACgkQjjKRsyhoI8wU/ACfVogt2CorBOZeNDRe9Q+V8h7d vJkAoKTDmMySZdADARicPv1iJc1tAyD4 =FSQo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Fri__27_Mar_2009_16_56_24_+1100_cOldlwHN2s6RDN+i--