Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:56:17 -0500 | From | Nathan Zimmer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH resend] fs/proc: Move kfree outside pde_unload_lock |
| |
On 04/05/2013 12:36 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 12:05:26PM -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote: >> On 04/04/2013 03:44 PM, Al Viro wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:12:05PM -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote: >>> >>>> Ok I am cloning the tree now. >>>> It does look like the patches would conflict. >>>> I'll run some tests and take a deeper look. >>> FWIW, I've just pushed there a tentative patch that switches to hopefully >>> saner locking (head should be at cb673c115c1f99d3480471ca5d8cb3f89a1e3bee). >>> Is that more or less what you want wrt spinlock contention? >>> >>> One note: for any given pde_opener, close_pdeo() can be called at most >>> by two threads - final fput() and remove_proc_entry() resp. I think >>> the use of completion + flag is safe there; pde->pde_unload_lock >>> should serialize the critical areas. >> Something isn't quite right. I keep getting hung during boot. >> dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda8 >> dracut: Switching root >> >> I'll try to get some more info on a smaller box. > Umm... Try to add WARN_ON(1) in entry_rundown(), just to see what's > getting hit (don't bother with entry name, stack trace will be enough). That didn't produce anything. I'll run some bisections over the weekend and see what I can sort out.
| |