Hi!
On 01/17/2017 03:39 PM, Joseph Qi wrote:
>
> On 17/1/17 14:30, Eric Ren wrote:
>> We are in the situation that we have to avoid recursive cluster locking,
>> but there is no way to check if a cluster lock has been taken by a
>> precess already.
>>
>> Mostly, we can avoid recursive locking by
On 17/1/17 14:30, Eric Ren wrote:
> Commit 743b5f1434f5 ("ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()")
> results in a deadlock, as the author "Tariq Saeed" realized shortly
> after the patch was merged. The discussion happened here
>
On 17/1/17 14:30, Eric Ren wrote:
> We are in the situation that we have to avoid recursive cluster locking,
> but there is no way to check if a cluster lock has been taken by a
> precess already.
>
> Mostly, we can avoid recursive locking by writing code carefully.
> However, we found that it's
On 01/17/2017 02:30 PM, Eric Ren wrote:
> We are in the situation that we have to avoid recursive cluster locking,
> but there is no way to check if a cluster lock has been taken by a
> precess already.
>
> Mostly, we can avoid recursive locking by writing code carefully.
> However, we found that
On 01/17/2017 02:30 PM, Eric Ren wrote:
> Commit 743b5f1434f5 ("ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()")
> results in a deadlock, as the author "Tariq Saeed" realized shortly
> after the patch was merged. The discussion happened here
>
We are in the situation that we have to avoid recursive cluster locking,
but there is no way to check if a cluster lock has been taken by a
precess already.
Mostly, we can avoid recursive locking by writing code carefully.
However, we found that it's very hard to handle the routines that
are
Commit 743b5f1434f5 ("ocfs2: take inode lock in ocfs2_iop_set/get_acl()")
results in a deadlock, as the author "Tariq Saeed" realized shortly
after the patch was merged. The discussion happened here
(https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2015-September/011085.html).
The reason why taking
This is a formal patch set v2 to solve the deadlock issue on which I
previously started a RFC (draft patch), and the discussion happened here:
[https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-devel/2016-October/012455.html]
Compared to the previous draft patch, this one is much simple and neat.
It neither
On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 13:12 -0600, Russell Mosemann wrote:
[...]
> Jan 15 17:31:03 vhost032 kernel: [ cut here ]
> Jan 15 17:31:03 vhost032 kernel: kernel BUG at
> /build/linux-Wgpe2M/linux-4.8.11/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c:1514!
This is:
static int ocfs2_grow_tree(handle_t
