> There does seem to be a possible problem with sk_inuse not being
> updated atomically, so a race between an increment and a decrement
> could lose one of them.
> svc_sock_release seems to often be called with no more protection than
> the BKL, and it decrements sk_inuse.
>
> svc_sock_enqueue,
> " " == Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The attached patch might fix it, so if you are having
> reproducable problems, it might be worth applying this patch.
> Trond: any comments?
> +
> + spin_lock_bh(>sv_lock);
> if (!--(svsk->sk_inuse)
" " == Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The attached patch might fix it, so if you are having
reproducable problems, it might be worth applying this patch.
Trond: any comments?
+
+ spin_lock_bh(serv-sv_lock);
if (!--(svsk-sk_inuse)
There does seem to be a possible problem with sk_inuse not being
updated atomically, so a race between an increment and a decrement
could lose one of them.
svc_sock_release seems to often be called with no more protection than
the BKL, and it decrements sk_inuse.
svc_sock_enqueue, on the
On Monday February 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> > How repeatable is this? Is the server SMP?
>
> I've tested this on two UP Athlons and 2 SMP Pentium 3's and the same problem
> occurred. I have not tested it more than once on the same system (I left
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Neil Brown wrote:
> How repeatable is this? Is the server SMP?
I've tested this on two UP Athlons and 2 SMP Pentium 3's and the same problem
occurred. I have not tested it more than once on the same system (I left the
NFS servers untouched after the reboot).
The Athlon
On Monday February 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
> ran into this problem:
>
> Stopping NFS says the following in the kernel logs:
>
> nfsd: terminating on signal 9
> nfsd: terminating on signal 9
> nfsd: terminating on signal
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
> > ran into this problem:
>
> Ok seen this in older 2.2 but not 2.4
>
> > nfsd: terminating on signal 9
> > svc: server socket destroy delayed
> >
> > And restarting NFS has the
> Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
> ran into this problem:
Ok seen this in older 2.2 but not 2.4
> nfsd: terminating on signal 9
> svc: server socket destroy delayed
>
> And restarting NFS has the following error message:
> Starting NFS mountd:
Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
ran into this problem:
Stopping NFS says the following in the kernel logs:
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
ran into this problem:
Stopping NFS says the following in the kernel logs:
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
ran into this problem:
Ok seen this in older 2.2 but not 2.4
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
svc: server socket destroy delayed
And restarting NFS has the following error message:
Starting NFS mountd:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
ran into this problem:
Ok seen this in older 2.2 but not 2.4
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
svc: server socket destroy delayed
And restarting NFS has the following error
On Monday February 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems recently, on both redhat 6.1 and 7.0 using kernel 2.4.1-ac3, I
ran into this problem:
Stopping NFS says the following in the kernel logs:
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd: terminating on signal 9
nfsd:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Neil Brown wrote:
How repeatable is this? Is the server SMP?
I've tested this on two UP Athlons and 2 SMP Pentium 3's and the same problem
occurred. I have not tested it more than once on the same system (I left the
NFS servers untouched after the reboot).
The Athlon
On Monday February 5, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Neil Brown wrote:
How repeatable is this? Is the server SMP?
I've tested this on two UP Athlons and 2 SMP Pentium 3's and the same problem
occurred. I have not tested it more than once on the same system (I left the
NFS
16 matches
Mail list logo
