Bug 242045 - On mount of gfs2, the DLM prints a lockdep warning
On mount of gfs2, the DLM prints a lockdep warning
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 201191
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dlm-kernel (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Christine Caulfield
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-06-01 09:11 EDT by Steve Whitehouse
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:12 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-06-01 09:53:56 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Steve Whitehouse 2007-06-01 09:11:36 EDT
On every mount of gfs2 I get the following warning from DLM:

dlm: Using TCP for communications
GFS2: fsid=unity:myfs.0: Joined cluster. Now mounting FS...

[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
dlm_recoverd/3500 is trying to release lock (&ls->ls_in_recovery) at:
[<ffffffff881c9747>] dlm_recoverd+0x31c/0x4a9 [dlm]
but there are no more locks to release!
other info that might help us debug this:
2 locks held by dlm_recoverd/3500:
 #0:  (&ls->ls_recoverd_active){--..}, at: [<ffffffff804c97b7>] mutex_lock+0x25/0x2a
 #1:  (&ls->ls_recover_lock){--..}, at: [<ffffffff881c9728>]
dlm_recoverd+0x2fd/0x4a9 [dlm]

stack backtrace:
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff881c9747>] :dlm:dlm_recoverd+0x31c/0x4a9
 [<ffffffff8024956d>] print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0x108/0x118
 [<ffffffff80303700>] kobject_release+0x0/0xf
 [<ffffffff80209b90>] restore_args+0x0/0x30
 [<ffffffff80253ca6>] is_module_address+0x18/0x83
 [<ffffffff8024b48a>] lock_release_non_nested+0x90/0x143
 [<ffffffff881c9747>] :dlm:dlm_recoverd+0x31c/0x4a9
 [<ffffffff8024b66a>] lock_release+0x12d/0x150
 [<ffffffff80245fda>] up_write+0x1e/0x2a
 [<ffffffff881c9747>] :dlm:dlm_recoverd+0x31c/0x4a9
 [<ffffffff881c942b>] :dlm:dlm_recoverd+0x0/0x4a9
 [<ffffffff80243253>] kthread+0x49/0x76
 [<ffffffff8020a4a8>] child_rip+0xa/0x12
 [<ffffffff80209b90>] restore_args+0x0/0x30
 [<ffffffff8024320a>] kthread+0x0/0x76
 [<ffffffff8020a49e>] child_rip+0x0/0x12

Its not a real problem so far as I can see, so it probably means that some
annotation is missing. On the otherhand it is a bit ammoying and ought to be
fixed at some stage. I'm filing this as a bug just so as it doesn't get forgotten.
Comment 1 David Teigland 2007-06-01 09:53:56 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 201191 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.