On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > does the system truly lock up, or is this some transitional condition?
> > > In any case, i agree that this should be debugged independently of the
> > > pi_lock patch.
> >
> > Hmm, I forgot that you took out the bit_spin_lock fixes. I think this
> > may be caused by them. I haven't look further into it yet.
>
> yeah, i took them out because they clashed with upstream changes. Note
> that i meanwhile also introduced a per-bh lock, which might make it
> easier to fix the deadlock:
>
> --- linux.orig/fs/buffer.c
> +++ linux/fs/buffer.c
> @@ -537,8 +537,7 @@ static void end_buffer_async_read(struct
> * decide that the page is now completely done.
> */
> first = page_buffers(page);
> - local_irq_save(flags);
> - bit_spin_lock(BH_Uptodate_Lock, &first->b_state);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&first->b_uptodate_lock, flags);
> clear_buffer_async_read(bh);
> unlock_buffer(bh);
> tmp = bh;
>
> could jbd reuse this lock - or would it need another lock?
I think it can. I'm looking into right now, but first I'm updating my
logdev to the latest release. I stripped it all out after submitting
that pi_lock patch and now I have to put it back in! I didn't save the
updates that I added earlier, so I'm reworking things now. The logging
definitely helps me, since that was a major factor in getting that
pi_lock patch done so quick.
-- Steve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |