On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 04:52:33AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 04:11:49AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 07:39:54PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > OK, the warnings about averting your eyes very much apply; the thing below > > > definitely needs more massage before it becomes acceptable (and no, it's > > > not a single commit; I'm not that insane), but it changes behaviour in the > > > way described above. Could you check if the livelock persists with it? > > > No trace-generating code in there, so the logs should be compact enough... > > > > Here's an updated patch, hopefully slightly less vomit-inducing. Should > > give the same behaviour as the previous one... Again, it's a cumulative > > diff - I'm still massaging the splitup here. > > BTW, it still leaves the "proceed to parent" case in shrink_dentry_list(); > in theory, it's also vulnerable to the same livelock. Can be dealt pretty > much the same way; I'd rather leave that one for right after -final, though, > if the already posted variant turns out to be sufficient...
... which is (presumably) dealt with the incremental I'd just sent to Linus; seeing what kind of dumb mistakes I'm making, I'd better call it quits for tonight - it's 1:30am here and I didn't have anywhere near enough sleep yesterday. I'd appeciate if you could test the patch immediately upthread (from Message-ID: <20140529031149.ge18...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>) and see if it helps. There's an incremental on top of it (from Message-ID: <20140529052621.gh18...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>) that might or might not be a good idea. I'm crawling to bed right now; back in ~7 hours... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
