Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> a number of people have hit that, on and off.
>> Yeah, I've been seeing that one. It should have been fixed with the big
>> fat patchset.
>
> Great - fingers crossed.
>
>>> We were close to having a fix, I think, but then we decided that great
>>> chunks of sysfs needed rewriting and I believe that we believe that this
>>> great rewrite will fix this bug.
>> How were we gonna fix it? If it isn't too complex, I can cook up a
>> patch for -stable series.
>
> Do we actually understand the causes?
Yeah, I think I do. Basically, the problem is that on-demand attach and
reclamation update sd->s_dentry but accesses to it aren't synchronized
properly. In the big fat patchset, first I tried to fix it by removing
sd->s_dentry completely which didn't work because of shadow nodes, so
the second try was to fix the synchronization which is in -mm now.
>> The safest approach I can think of is making
>> dentries for attributes unreclaimable but those are made reclaimable for
>> good reasons. :-(
>
> Yeah, that was the google workaround. It's OK unless you happen to have
> thousands of disks on an ia32 box.
I see. I thought there was different approach on fixing the problem.
I'll try to backport the synchronization fix but am afraid it can be too
risky for -stable. If it seems too risky, I'll send a patch to disable
reclamation.
--
tejun
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
