Re: [PATCH] Fix shrink_dcache_parent() against shrink_dcache_memory() race (3rd updated patch)]

[Kirill Korotaev <dev@sw.ru>]

> > > I think that we should go for the first.
> >
> > just an idea which came to my mind:
> > can't we fix it the following way:
> > 1. fix select_parent() when called from generic_shutdown_super() to loop 
> > until _all_ dentries are shrinked (not only those, with d_count = 1);
> > this guarentees that no dentries are left.
> > 2. no dentries are left, but iput() can be in progress.
> > So can't we simply make invalidate_inodes() to be in a loop with 
> > schedule() until no busy inodes are left?!
>
>
> But this hides the places where dput() is called after mntput() and locks up
> when somebody forgets to call dput() at all. And I think we should printk() in
> that situations instead of waiting for them.
I think both: printk and wait.
From my own personal experience with it: it is better to wait in a loop 
and be able to collect information, then to crash.

Thanks,
Kirill

-
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/