On Nov 10, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:45:55PM +0100, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote: >> To make it short, Manuels fix was right, me removing it and trying to get it >> done in vn_lock() is wrong. >> >> While vget() vs. cleanvnode() (the cleaner) was always free of races, >> vget() vs. vrelel() is not. Manuels fix checking the vnode state when >> vrelel() >> got its vnode lock and before it starts inactivating and cleaning is right. >> >> Please try the attached diff that brings back the fix. > > I'm not sure how this would fix it. Although there may also be a race > bwteen vget() and vrelel(), the race I described is really between > vget() and cleanvnode() here (more specifically, vget() and vclean(), which is > used by both cleanvnode() and vrelel()). I can't see how your patch would fix > this one. I still don't get it. If vget() gets preempted after releasing the nodes interlock this node has already been removed from the freelist so cleanvnode() cannot take and clean it. > BTW, in your patch you clear (VI_INACTREDO|VI_INACTNOW), while INACTREDO is > cleared 2 lines later. You could delete this second line I guess :) Sure :-) -- J. Hannken-Illjes - hann...@eis.cs.tu-bs.de - TU Braunschweig (Germany)
