Alasdair G Kergon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also io->pending may need better protection - atomic, but missing memory
> barriers? (May be getting away without sometimes due to side-effects of
> other function calls, but needs doing properly.)
If it's using atomic_dec_and_test then that comes wi
On Nov 24, 2007 4:49 AM, Alasdair G Kergon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:42:36PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > ... or I just don't see the bug.
>
> See my earlier post in this thread: there's a race in the write loop
> where a work struct could be used twice on the same
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:42:36PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> Before the cleanup *all* calls to crypt_dec_pending() was via crypt_endio().
> Now there is an additional call to crypt_dec_pending() to balance the
> additional ref placed into crypt_write_io_process(). And that one is
> not called
Also io->pending may need better protection - atomic, but missing memory
barriers? (May be getting away without sometimes due to side-effects of
other function calls, but needs doing properly.)
[BTW Other device-mapper atomic_t usage also needs reviewing.]
Alasdair
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To uns
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:42:36PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> ... or I just don't see the bug.
See my earlier post in this thread: there's a race in the write loop
where a work struct could be used twice on the same queue.
(Needs data structure change to fix that, which nobody has attempted
t
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> * Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > Above this acquire/release sequence is the following comment:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_LOCK
On Nov 20, 2007 7:55 AM, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please could you try which patch from the dm-crypt series cause this ?
> > (agk-dm-dm-crypt* names.)
> >
> > I suspect agk-dm-dm-crypt-move-bio-submission-to-thre
Hi,
> > Ok, then I have question: Is the following pseudocode correct
> > (and problem is in lock validation which checks something
> > already initialized for another queue) or reusing work_struct
> > is not permitted from inside called work function ?
> >
> > (Note comment in code "It is permiss
Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>
> - But what happens if kcryptd_crypt_write_convert_loop() calls
> INIT_WORK/queue_work twice?
Can't find this function. But "INIT_WORK + queue_work" twice is very
wrong of course.
Milan Broz wrote:
>
> Ok, then I have question: Is the following pseudocode correct
> (
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:40:30PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> (Note comment in code "It is permissible to free the struct
> work_struct from inside the function that is called from it".)
I don't understand yet how lockdep behaves if the work struct gets
reused and the reused one finishes first.
Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
>>> Anything I could try, apart from more boots with slub_debug=F?
>
> One time it triggered with slub_debug=F, but no additional output.
> With slub_debug=FP I have not seen it again,
On Nov 19, 2007 10:00 PM, Milan Broz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > Anything I could try, apart from more boots with slub_debug=F?
One time it triggered with slub_debug=F, but no additional output.
With slub_debug=FP I have not seen it again, so I can't say if that
would yi
Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Above this acquire/release sequence is the following comment:
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> /*
> * It is permissible to free the
On Nov 19, 2007 8:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Trying the last NFSv4 patch (but that patch is only the cause, why I
> > had lockdep enabled) I got this:
> > [ 64.550203]
> > [ 64.550205] =
> > [ 64.
* Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trying the last NFSv4 patch (but that patch is only the cause, why I
> had lockdep enabled) I got this:
> [ 64.550203]
> [ 64.550205] =
> [ 64.552213] [ BUG: held lock freed! ]
> [ 64.553633] -
>
Trying the last NFSv4 patch (but that patch is only the cause, why I
had lockdep enabled) I got this:
[ 64.550203]
[ 64.550205] =
[ 64.552213] [ BUG: held lock freed! ]
[ 64.553633] -
[ 64.555055] kcryptd/1022 is freeing memory
81011EBEF
16 matches
Mail list logo
