[Jan Kara - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:10:36PM +0200]
| On Wed 30-05-07 16:46:28, Eric Sandeen wrote:
| > Jan Kara wrote:
| > > Hello,
| > >
| > > On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
| > >> Hello,
| > >>
| > >> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
| > >>
[Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:28:40AM +0400]
| [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:49:42PM -0700]
| | On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| |
| | > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
| | > [...snip...]
| | > |
| | > |
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 03:49:42PM -0700]
| On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
| > [...snip...]
| > |
| > | No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 00:01:46 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
> [...snip...]
> |
> | No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
> | within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:16:16PM -0700]
[...snip...]
|
| No, the problem is that the patch caused the kernel to take inode_lock
| within the newly-added drop_inode(), btu drop_inode() is already called
| under inode_lock.
|
| It has nothing to do with lock_kernel() and it has noth
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 22:57:07 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:32:03AM -0700]
> | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
> | > | On Sat,
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:32:03AM -0700]
| On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
| > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > |
| > | > [A
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:06:19 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
> | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
> | > | On Sat,
[Andrew Morton - Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 12:06:45AM -0700]
| On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
| > | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| > |
| > | > |
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:59:23 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
> | On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > | That patch is DOA, methinks.
> | > |
> | >
> | > Andrew, what does
[Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:54:22PM -0700]
| On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > | That patch is DOA, methinks.
| > |
| >
| > Andrew, what does it mean - "DOA"? Dead on arrival?
|
| yes - I dropped it.
|
But that could lead to reject
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:34:03 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | That patch is DOA, methinks.
> |
>
> Andrew, what does it mean - "DOA"? Dead on arrival?
yes - I dropped it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EM
[Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:43:39PM -0700]
| On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:51 -0500 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > Andrew Morton wrote:
| > > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
| > > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| > >> going for the inode_lock twice?
| > >>
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:17:51 -0500 Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
> > Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> going for the inode_lock twice?
> >>
> >
> > lockdep should catch that.
> >
>
> hey that's a good idea...!
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
going for the inode_lock twice?
lockdep should catch that.
hey that's a good idea...! *sigh* sometimes I worry about myself... but
hey at least I got it right. :)
=
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:49 -0500
Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Thanks for info - I'm now mostly out of email for a few days but I'll
> > have a look at it as soon as I return.
> >
> > Honza
>
> Here w
Jan Kara wrote:
Thanks for info - I'm now mostly out of email for a few days but I'll
have a look at it as soon as I return.
Honza
Here we go:
[1]kdb> btp 3263
Stack traceback for pid 3263
0x81006f1b8100 3263 3247
Jan Kara wrote:
but iput goes
iput->iput_final->drop_inode->udf_drop_inode->lock_kernel() again
As Andrew already wrote, BKL is free to recurse...
looking for the right way around it but figured I'd ping you early :)
Thanks for info - I'm now mostly out of email for a few days but I'll
h
On Wed 30-05-07 16:46:28, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
> >> free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:51:34PM -0500]
| Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| >| Andrew Morton wrote:
| >|
| >| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
| >|
| >| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| >| go
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:51:34PM -0500]
| Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| >| Andrew Morton wrote:
| >|
| >| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
| >|
| >| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| >| go
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| Andrew Morton wrote:
|
| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
|
| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| good thing :)
|
| Ok, let me look into it further. I changed lock_kernel
[Eric Sandeen - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:17:53PM -0500]
| Andrew Morton wrote:
|
| >Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
|
| Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
| good thing :)
|
| Ok, let me look into it further. I changed lock_kernel to
| udf_lock_kernel to
Andrew Morton wrote:
Recursive lock_kernel() is OK.
Oh, it is? Clearly I am not well versed in the BKL... that's probably a
good thing :)
Ok, let me look into it further. I changed lock_kernel to
udf_lock_kernel to complain & backtrace if we re-lock, and it always
immediately hung a
[Andrew Morton - Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:04:25AM -0700]
| On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:49:26 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > [Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500]
| > | Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > |
| > | >Eric, could you please try the following:
| > | >
| > | >1)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 20:49:26 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500]
> | Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> |
> | >Eric, could you please try the following:
> | >
> | >1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
> | >
> | > DEFINE_SPIN
[Eric Sandeen - Thu, May 31, 2007 at 12:46:15PM -0500]
| Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
|
| >Eric, could you please try the following:
| >
| >1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
| >
| > DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock);
| >
| >2) replace in udf_drop_inode()
| >
| > kernel_lock -> spin_l
Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
Eric, could you please try the following:
1) declare the spinlock in the top of inode.c as
DEFINE_SPINLOCK(udf_drop_lock);
2) replace in udf_drop_inode()
kernel_lock -> spin_lock(&udf_drop_lock);
kernel_unlock -> spin_unlock(&udf_drop_lock);
I'
[Eric Sandeen - Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:22:23PM -0500]
| Eric Sandeen wrote:
|
| > Jan, something seems busted here. I'm getting lockups when testing udf
| > on a single cpu with this last patch in place...
| >
| > I think it's the BKL stumbling on itself.
|
| To demonstrate, try this:
|
| # B
[Eric Sandeen - Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:22:23PM -0500]
| Eric Sandeen wrote:
|
| > Jan, something seems busted here. I'm getting lockups when testing udf
| > on a single cpu with this last patch in place...
| >
| > I think it's the BKL stumbling on itself.
|
| To demonstrate, try this:
|
| # B
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jan, something seems busted here. I'm getting lockups when testing udf
> on a single cpu with this last patch in place...
>
> I think it's the BKL stumbling on itself.
To demonstrate, try this:
# BIGFILENAME=`seq -s '' 1 1000`
# ln -s $BIGFILENAME foo
instant deadlock :(
Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
>> free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added in my
>> first round of patches). More details in the changel
Hello,
On Thu 24-05-07 19:05:54, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> attached is a patch that fixes possible leakage of free blocks / use of
> free blocks in UDF (which spilled nice assertion failures I've added in my
> first round of patches). More details in the changelog. Andrew, please apply.
33 matches
Mail list logo
