On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Felix Frank <[email protected]> wrote: > Last week, I posted a patch to RT #124627, only to notice this morning that > I'd been testing with a large-ish cache. > Also, there appears to be some regression in my own fiddlings, as #124627 > isn't > solved at all. For what it's worth, the deadlock as reported in #120491 is > apparently prevented, although mmap_test still gets blocked in some I/O-wait > state.
The deadlock in 120491 only happens with a cache nearer the size of the mmap'd file. I suspect a cache smaller simply won't work. > Cache consistency with mmap'ed writes can apparently only be achieved when > no afs_linux_writepage_sync's are aborted at all. > > I think I still haven't truly understood the exact idea of the antirecursion > patch. To me, it seems to omit writing some precious data. We had a backtrace which showed we were calling back into ourselves. The sole goal was to prevent that. Anything beyond was incidental and uneeded. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
