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

[Balbir Singh <balbir@in.ibm.com>]

> >Given that background, I thought our main concern was with respect to
> >unmount. The race was between shrink_dcache_parent() (called from unmount)
> >and shrink_dcache_memory() (called from the allocator), hence the fix
> >for the race condition.
> Partial fix doesn't make much sense from my point of view.
>

IMHO, It was not a partial fix. slab_drop() addition changed the assumptions
used by this fix 
 
> >I just noticied that 2.6.16-rc* now seems to have drop_slab() where
> >PF_MEMALLOC is not set. So, we can still race with my fix if there
> >if /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches is written to and unmount is done in parallel.
> >
> >A simple hack would be to set PF_MEMALLOC in drop_slab(), but I do not
> >think it is a good idea.
> Yeah, playing with PF_MEMALLOC can be not so good idea :/
> And as it doesn't help in other cases it looks unpromising...

Yes, agreed.

> 
> >>>Have you had any other feedback on this?
> >>here it is :)
> >Thanks for your detailed feedback
> Sorry, that I did it too late :/
> 

No problem

> Thanks,
> Kirill
> 

Balbir
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/