On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 16:15 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 14 November 2010 14:51:04 Avi Kivity wrote: > > automount S ffff88012a28a680 0 399 1 0x00000000 > > ffff88012a07bd08 0000000000000082 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 > > ffff88012a07a010 ffff88012a07bfd8 0000000000011800 ffff88012693c260 > > ffff88012693c5d0 ffff88012693c5c8 0000000000011800 0000000000011800 > > Call Trace: > > [<ffffffff81056197>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x67/0x74 > > [<ffffffff811b23eb>] autofs4_wait+0x5a4/0x6d5 > > [<ffffffff81055f25>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x34 > > [<ffffffff811b2ba5>] autofs4_do_expire_multi+0x5b/0xa3 > > [<ffffffff811b2c39>] autofs4_expire_multi+0x4c/0x54 > > [<ffffffff811b1750>] autofs4_root_ioctl_unlocked+0x23e/0x252 > > [<ffffffff811b1808>] autofs4_root_ioctl+0x39/0x53 > > [<ffffffff810f5e5c>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x557/0x5bb > > [<ffffffff810ca644>] ? remove_vma+0x6e/0x76 > > [<ffffffff810cb6a2>] ? do_munmap+0x31c/0x33e > > [<ffffffff810f5f02>] sys_ioctl+0x42/0x65 > > [<ffffffff81002b42>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > > > Shouldn't we drop autofs4_ioctl_mutex while we wait? > > If the ioctl can sleep for multiple seconds, the mutex should > indeed be dropped, and that would be safe because we used to > do the same with the BKL. > > The question is why this would sleep for more than 120 seconds.
umount against a server that isn't responding can easily take more than 2 minutes. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
