On Friday 16 September 2016 05:40 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:19:19PM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a question regarding this change. As after this change
>> dput() is sleepable, is it still safe to use if under the
>> spinlock in the function
On Friday 16 September 2016 05:40 PM, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:19:19PM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a question regarding this change. As after this change
>> dput() is sleepable, is it still safe to use if under the
>> spinlock in the function
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:19:19PM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a question regarding this change. As after this change
> dput() is sleepable, is it still safe to use if under the
> spinlock in the function d_prune_aliases?
It has always been sleepable and it wouldn't have been
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:19:19PM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a question regarding this change. As after this change
> dput() is sleepable, is it still safe to use if under the
> spinlock in the function d_prune_aliases?
It has always been sleepable and it wouldn't have been
On Wednesday 22 June 2016 08:31 AM, Wei Fang wrote:
> We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
> open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
> five different CPUs:
>
> WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
> ...
> [] dput+0x100/0x298
> []
On Wednesday 22 June 2016 08:31 AM, Wei Fang wrote:
> We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
> open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
> five different CPUs:
>
> WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
> ...
> [] dput+0x100/0x298
> []
Hi, Boqun,
>> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
>> index d5ecc6e..074fc1c 100644
>> --- a/fs/dcache.c
>> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
>> @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ static struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
>>
>> failed:
>> spin_unlock(>d_lock);
>> -cpu_relax();
>> +
Hi, Boqun,
>> diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
>> index d5ecc6e..074fc1c 100644
>> --- a/fs/dcache.c
>> +++ b/fs/dcache.c
>> @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ static struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
>>
>> failed:
>> spin_unlock(>d_lock);
>> -cpu_relax();
>> +
Hi Wei Fang,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:01:15AM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
> open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
> five different CPUs:
>
> WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
> ...
> [] dput+0x100/0x298
> []
Hi Wei Fang,
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:01:15AM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
> open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
> five different CPUs:
>
> WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
> ...
> [] dput+0x100/0x298
> []
We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
five different CPUs:
WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
...
[] dput+0x100/0x298
[] terminate_walk+0x4c/0x60
[] path_lookupat+0x5cc/0x7a8
[] filename_lookup+0x38/0xf0
[]
We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
five different CPUs:
WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
...
[] dput+0x100/0x298
[] terminate_walk+0x4c/0x60
[] path_lookupat+0x5cc/0x7a8
[] filename_lookup+0x38/0xf0
[]
12 matches
Mail list logo