Jens Axboe writes:
> On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Nate Eldredge wrote:
> > Nate Eldredge writes:
> > > Kernel 2.4.2-ac3.
> > >
> > > FLAGS UID PID PPID PRI NI SIZE RSS WCHAN STA TTY TIME COMMAND
> > > 40 0 425 1 -1 -20 0 0 downDW< ? 0:00 (loop0
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Ah ok, I see what you mean. Updated patch attached.
Corresponding patch against 2.4.2 is on ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/loop-S2.gz
Cheers,
On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > What's the worst that can happen? We do an extra up, but loop_thread
> > will still quit once we hit zero lo_pending. And loop_clr_fd
> > is still protected by lo_ctl_mutex.
>
> Well, for one thing you'll get some surprises next time you losetup
> th
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Let me elaborate: the race is very narrow and takes deliberate efforts to
> > hit. It _can_ be triggered, unfortunately. This extra up() will mess your
> > life later on.
>
> What's the worst that can happe
On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Let me elaborate: the race is very narrow and takes deliberate efforts to
> hit. It _can_ be triggered, unfortunately. This extra up() will mess your
> life later on.
What's the worst that can happen? We do an extra up, but loop_thread
will still quit
On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > if (atomic_dec_and_test(...))
> > > up(...);
> > > not just
> > > atomic_dec(...);
> > > up(...);
> > >
> > > Otherwise you can end up with too early exit of loop_thread. Normally
> > > it would not matter, but in pathological cases
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > Erm... Jens, it really should be
> > > if (atomic_dec_and_test(...))
> > > up(...);
> > > not just
> > > atomic_dec(...);
> > > up(..
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Erm... Jens, it really should be
> > if (atomic_dec_and_test(...))
> > up(...);
> > not just
> > atomic_dec(...);
> > up(...);
> >
> > Otherwise you can end up with too early exit of
On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Erm... Jens, it really should be
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(...))
> up(...);
> not just
> atomic_dec(...);
> up(...);
>
> Otherwise you can end up with too early exit of loop_thread. Normally
> it would not matter, but in
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Jens, you have a race in lo_clr_fd() (loop-6). I've put the fixed
> > variant on ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/loop-S2.gz. Diff and you'll
> > see - it's in the very beginning of the lo_clr_fd().
>
> Oops yeah
On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Jens, you have a race in lo_clr_fd() (loop-6). I've put the fixed
> variant on ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/loop-S2.gz. Diff and you'll
> see - it's in the very beginning of the lo_clr_fd().
Oops yeah you are right. Here's a diff of my current loop stuff
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Nate Eldredge wrote:
> > Nate Eldredge writes:
> > > Kernel 2.4.2-ac3.
> > >
> > > FLAGS UID PID PPID PRI NI SIZE RSS WCHAN STA TTY TIME COMMAND
> > > 40 0 425 1 -1 -20 0 0 downDW
On Sun, Feb 25 2001, Nate Eldredge wrote:
> Nate Eldredge writes:
> > Kernel 2.4.2-ac3.
> >
> > FLAGS UID PID PPID PRI NI SIZE RSS WCHAN STA TTY TIME COMMAND
> > 40 0 425 1 -1 -20 0 0 downDW< ? 0:00 (loop0)
>
> It looks like this has been ad
Nate Eldredge writes:
> Kernel 2.4.2-ac3.
>
> FLAGS UID PID PPID PRI NI SIZE RSS WCHAN STA TTY TIME COMMAND
> 40 0 425 1 -1 -20 0 0 downDW< ? 0:00 (loop0)
It looks like this has been addressed in the thread "242-ac3 loop
bug". Jens Axboe po
Kernel 2.4.2-ac3.
FLAGS UID PID PPID PRI NI SIZE RSS WCHAN STA TTY TIME COMMAND
40 0 425 1 -1 -20 0 0 downDW< ? 0:00 (loop0)
>From a look at the source it seems that this may be normal behavior
(though I'm not sure). However, it's still cosmeti
15 matches
Mail list logo
