[Jan Kara - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:10:36PM +0200]
| On Wed 30-05-07 16:46:28, Eric Sandeen wrote:
| > Jan Kara wrote:
| > > Hello,
| > >
| > > On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
| > >> Hello,
| > >>
| > >> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
| > >>
[Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:28:40AM +0400]
| [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:49:42PM -0700]
| | On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| |
| | > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
| | > [...snip...]
| | > |
| | > |
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:49:42PM -0700]
| On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
| > [...snip...]
| > |
| > | No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
> [...snip...]
> |
> | No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
> | within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
[...snip...]
|
| No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
| within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already called
| under inode_lock.
|
| It has nothing to do with lock_kernel() and it has noth
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:57:07 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:32:03AM -0700]
> | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
> | > | On Sat,
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:32:03AM -0700]
| On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
| > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > |
| > | > [A
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
> | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
> | > | On Sat,
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
| On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
| > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > |
| > | > |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
> | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > | That patch is DOA, methinks.
> | > |
> | >
> | > Andrew, what does
[Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
| On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > | That patch is DOA, methinks.
| > |
| >
| > Andrew, what does it mean - "DOA"? Dead on arrival?
|
| yes - I dropped it.
|
But that could lead to reject
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | That patch is DOA, methinks.
> |
>
> Andrew, what does it mean - "DOA"? Dead on arrival?
yes - I dropped it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EM
[Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:43:39PM -0700]
| On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:51 -0500 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Andrew Morton wrote:
| > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
| > > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| > >> going for the inode_lock twice?
| > >>
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:51 -0500 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
> > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> going for the inode_lock twice?
> >>
> >
> > lockdep should catch that.
> >
>
> hey that's a good idea...!
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
going for the inode_lock twice?
lockdep should catch that.
hey that's a good idea...! *sigh* sometimes I worry about myself... but
hey at least I got it right. :)
=
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Thanks for info - I'm now mostly out of email for a few days but I'll
> > have a look at it as soon as I return.
> >
> > Honza
>
> Here w
Jan Kara wrote:
Thanks for info - I'm now mostly out of email for a few days but I'll
have a look at it as soon as I return.
Honza
Here we go:
[1]kdb> btp 3263
Stack traceback for pid 3263
0x81006f1b8100 3263 3247
Jan Kara wrote:
but iput goes
iput->iput_final->drop_inode->udf_drop_inode->lock_kernel() again
As Andrew already wrote, BKL is free to recurse...
looking for the right way around it but figured I'd ping you early :)
Thanks for info - I'm now mostly out of email for a few days but I'll
h
On Wed 30-05-07 16:46:28, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
> >> free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:51:34PM -0500]
| Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| >| Andrew Morton wrote:
| >|
| >| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
| >|
| >| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| >| go
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:51:34PM -0500]
| Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| >| Andrew Morton wrote:
| >|
| >| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
| >|
| >| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| >| go
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| Andrew Morton wrote:
|
| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
|
| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| good thing :)
|
| Ok, let me look into it further. I changed lock_kernel
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| Andrew Morton wrote:
|
| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
|
| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| good thing :)
|
| Ok, let me look into it further. I changed lock_kernel to
| udf_lock_kernel to
Andrew Morton wrote:
Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
good thing :)
Ok, let me look into it further. I changed lock_kernel to
udf_lock_kernel to complain & backtrace if we re-lock, and it always
immediately hung a
[Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:04:25AM -0700]
| On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:49:26 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500]
| > | Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > |
| > | >Eric, could you please try the following:
| > | >
| > | >1)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:49:26 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500]
> | Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> |
> | >Eric, could you please try the following:
> | >
> | >1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
> | >
> | > DEFINE_SPIN
[Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500]
| Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
|
| >Eric, could you please try the following:
| >
| >1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
| >
| > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock);
| >
| >2) replace in udf_drop_inode()
| >
| > kernel_lock -> spin_l
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Eric, could you please try the following:
1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock);
2) replace in udf_drop_inode()
kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock);
kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock);
I'
[Eric Sandeen - Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:22:23PM -0500]
| Eric Sandeen wrote:
|
| > Jan, something seems busted here. I'm getting lockups when testing udf
| > on a single cpu with this last patch in place...
| >
| > I think it's the BKL stumbling on itself.
|
| To demonstrate, try this:
|
| # B
[Eric Sandeen - Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:22:23PM -0500]
| Eric Sandeen wrote:
|
| > Jan, something seems busted here. I'm getting lockups when testing udf
| > on a single cpu with this last patch in place...
| >
| > I think it's the BKL stumbling on itself.
|
| To demonstrate, try this:
|
| # B
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jan, something seems busted here. I'm getting lockups when testing udf
> on a single cpu with this last patch in place...
>
> I think it's the BKL stumbling on itself.
To demonstrate, try this:
# BIGFILENAME=`seq -s '' 1 1000`
# ln -s $BIGFILENAME foo
instant deadlock :(
Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
>> free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added in my
>> first round of patches). More details in the changel
Hello,
On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
> free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added in my
> first round of patches). More details in the changelog. Andrew, please apply.
Hello,
attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added in my
first round of patches). More details in the changelog. Andrew, please apply.
Both changes have survived some time of fsx and fsstress testi
34 matches
Mail list logo
