Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super

On Thu, Jan 19, Kirill Korotaev wrote:

> This patch has nothing to do with vfsmount references and doesn't hide 
> anything. It just adds syncronization barrier between do_umount() and 
> shrink_dcache() since the latter can work with dentries/inodes without 
> holding locks.
> 
> So if you think there is something wrong with it, please, be more specific.
> 

You can only unmount a file system if there are no references to the vfsmount
object anymore. Since shrink_dcache*() is called after checking the refcount of
vfsmount while unmounting the file system, it isn't possible to hold a
reference to a dentry (and therefore call dput()) after this point in
time. Therefore your reference counting on the vfsmount is wrong which is the
root case for your problem of busy inodes.

Regards,
	Jan

-- 
Jan Blunck                                               [email protected]
SuSE LINUX AG - A Novell company
Maxfeldstr. 5                                          +49-911-74053-608
D-90409 Nürnberg                                      http://www.suse.de
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
    • From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
    • From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
    • From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
    • From: Jan Blunck <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
    • From: Kirill Korotaev <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [discuss] Re: Why is wmb() a no-op on x86_64?
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]