Hi Mark,
On 12/23/2015 06:12 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:12:34PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On 12/19/2015 07:23 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:48AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 12/15/2015 03:18 AM, Mark Fasheh
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 01:12:34PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 12/19/2015 07:23 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:48AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> On 12/15/2015 03:18 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:03:17PM +0800, J
Hi Mark,
On 12/19/2015 07:23 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:48AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On 12/15/2015 03:18 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> Second, this issue can be reproduced in old Linux ker
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:43:48AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 12/15/2015 03:18 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> >>> Second, this issue can be reproduced in old Linux kernels (e.g.
> >>> 3.16.7-24)? there should not be any reg
Hi Mark,
On 12/15/2015 03:18 AM, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>>> Second, this issue can be reproduced in old Linux kernels (e.g. 3.16.7-24)?
>>> there should not be any regression issue?
>> Maybe just hard to reproduce, ocfs2 supports recursiv
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> > Second, this issue can be reproduced in old Linux kernels (e.g. 3.16.7-24)?
> > there should not be any regression issue?
> Maybe just hard to reproduce, ocfs2 supports recursive locking.
In what sense? The DLM might but the FS shou
> 在 2015年12月14日,下午4:57,Eric Ren 写道:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> On 12/14/2015 01:39 PM, Gang He wrote:
>>> Hello Junxiao,
>>>
>>> From the initial description, the second lock_XYZ(PR) should be blocked,
>>> since DLM have a fair queue mechanism
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 05:02:26PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 04:44 PM, Eric Ren wrote:
> > Hi Junxiao,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:57:38AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> >> The following locking order can cause a deadlock.
> >> Process A on Node X: Process
On 12/14/2015 04:44 PM, Eric Ren wrote:
> Hi Junxiao,
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:57:38AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
>> The following locking order can cause a deadlock.
>> Process A on Node X: Process B on Node Y:
>> lock_XYZ(PR)
>> lock_XYZ(
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 01:39 PM, Gang He wrote:
> > Hello Junxiao,
> >
> > From the initial description, the second lock_XYZ(PR) should be blocked,
> > since DLM have a fair queue mechanism, otherwise, it looks to bring a
> > write lock
Hi Junxiao,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:57:38AM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> The following locking order can cause a deadlock.
> Process A on Node X: Process B on Node Y:
> lock_XYZ(PR)
> lock_XYZ(EX)
> lock_XYZ(PR) >>> blocked forever by OCFS2_LO
On 12/14/2015 01:39 PM, Gang He wrote:
> Hello Junxiao,
>
> From the initial description, the second lock_XYZ(PR) should be blocked,
> since DLM have a fair queue mechanism, otherwise, it looks to bring a write
> lock starvation.
Should be blocked? No, that is a deadlock. I don't think this rec
Hello Junxiao,
>From the initial description, the second lock_XYZ(PR) should be blocked, since
>DLM have a fair queue mechanism, otherwise, it looks to bring a write lock
>starvation.
Second, this issue can be reproduced in old Linux kernels (e.g. 3.16.7-24)?
there should not be any regression
The following locking order can cause a deadlock.
Process A on Node X: Process B on Node Y:
lock_XYZ(PR)
lock_XYZ(EX)
lock_XYZ(PR) >>> blocked forever by OCFS2_LOCK_BLOCKED.
Use ocfs2-test multiple reflink test can reproduce this on v4.3 kernel,
14 matches
Mail list logo