Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 May 2003 22:47:43 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... |
| |
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:42:32PM -0700, manish wrote: > Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > > >On Tuesday 27 May 2003 22:20, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > >Hi Andrea, > > > > > >>>1. Stock 2.4.20 > >>>2. 2.4.20 with the io_request_lock removed. > >>>The tests on the first one are still going. The tests on the second one > >>>showed processes getting stuck for long times (> 5 minutes) and not > >>>paused ... > >>> > >>sorry if it's a dumb question but what is the "io_request_lock removed" > >>thing? Hope you didn't delete any io_request_lock, if you did you can > >>get worse things than crashes (i.e. mm/fs corruption). the pausing bug > >>was a genuine race (quite innocent, if you could trigger a disk unplug > >>you could recover from it) > >> > >>Andrea > >> > >funny. I asked him the same ;) > > > >see his response: > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>what is this io_request_lock patch you are talking about? > >> > >>ciao, Marc > >> > >We made some changes to the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock > >and replace with queue_lock and host_lock. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >ciao, Marc > > > We made a change in the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock and > replace with the host_lock and the queue_lock. Probably, not a right > thing to do
right you are, but never mind, only remeber e2fsck the fs before booting the box so you don't risk fs corruption later with the solid kernels.
Andrea - 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/
| |