Bug 201191
Summary: | DLM Bad Unlock Balance Detected | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Robert Peterson <rpeterso> |
Component: | kernel | Assignee: | David Teigland <teigland> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Red Hat Kernel QE team <kernel-qe> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 5.0 | CC: | ccaulfie, cluster-maint, swhiteho |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-11-22 22:09:56 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Robert Peterson
2006-08-03 14:32:09 UTC
I get this all the time, I don't think it's a bug or a problem. AFAICT, it's complaining because the lock is being taken and released by different threads, which is intentional. I don't know enough about the "unlock balance" checking to be certain that that's what it's worried about, or to know if there's a way to suppress the warning. If it's not a bug, then the dmesgs should not appear (they will just excite users) or else they should be tamed down and not say "BUG:" and no call trace should be given. I'm seeing these as well. Bob is right, if it's not a bug then it shouldn't say "BUG" and shouldn't do a backtrace. Are we going to do anything about this issue? Still seeing this blatant BUG message followed by a backtrace everytime I start clvmd. Customers aren't gonna like seeing this everytime. It should only happen if the kernels are built with lock debugging compiled in. Are we really shipping debug kernels ? I emailed Ingo about this last week, asking if we could add down_write_non_owner() / up_write_non_owner() (to parallel the read_non_owner variant). He wanted to know why we were doing the down/up from different threads which I explained. Haven't heard back yet. This message is no longer appearing with recent RHEL5 beta kernels. Suggest we close it "CurrentRelease". *** Bug 242045 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Moving all RHCS ver 5 bugs to RHEL 5 so we can remove RHCS v5 which never existed. |