linux-next: spinlock lockup with next-20081118 on powerpc

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi Jens,

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:58:33 +0100 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> ;-) I'm aware of that, I meant the 'timer' data argument. But you are
> right, it's probably q->queue_lock being NULL here or we would have
> oopsed earlier. There's no code line.
> 
> > address of the spinlock (though I need to check more to be sure) as it
> > crashed inside _spin_lock_irqsave.
> 
> Do you know what device this might be? It still makes no sense, if the
> timer was added, we went through the normal IO paths and we would have
> crashed on NULL ->queue_lock much earlier.

I don't know much more, but I may find out tomorrow with Paul's help.
However it bisects down to commit
279430a72bb6e83d335b4219e9af5557e2ff3350 "block: leave the request
timeout timer running even on an empty list" and reverting that commit on
next-20081118 makes the spinlock lockup go away.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr at canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20081120/77c88f4f/attachment.pgp>