Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-rc2-mm1 - several bugs and a crash | From | Dave Hansen <> | Date | Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:36:47 -0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 04:38 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > <4>[ 0.071378] [do_name+279/440] do_name+0x117/0x1b8 > > <4>[ 0.071570] [write_buffer+34/49] write_buffer+0x22/0x31 > > <4>[ 0.071763] [flush_window+105/184] flush_window+0x69/0xb8 > > <4>[ 0.071996] [unpack_to_rootfs+1585/2238] unpack_to_rootfs+0x631/0x8be > > <4>[ 0.072192] [trace_hardirqs_on_caller+248/301] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xf8/0x12d > > <4>[ 0.072440] [restore_nocheck_notrace+0/16] ? restore_nocheck_notrace+0x0/0x10 > > <4>[ 0.072689] [populate_rootfs+37/270] populate_rootfs+0x25/0x10e > > <4>[ 0.072886] [alternative_instructions+344/349] ? alternative_instructions+0x158/0x15d > > <4>[ 0.073139] [start_kernel+840/858] start_kernel+0x348/0x35a > > <4>[ 0.073335] ======================= > > (net-related cc's removed) > > This look like a startup ordering bug in mnt_want_write().
Let me look into it a bit. Although, it does seem that this stuff is just calling into the filesystem code too early. The mnt_writers[] spinlocks are init'd with a:
fs_initcall(init_mnt_writers);
and populate_rootfs() is supposed to happen in a rootfs_initcall() so I'm a bit confused how it happened in this order.
-- Dave
| |