Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:10:46 -0500 | From | Sasha Levin <> | Subject | Re: fs: locks: WARNING: CPU: 16 PID: 4296 at fs/locks.c:236 locks_free_lock_context+0x10d/0x240() |
| |
On 01/16/2015 09:40 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:31:23 -0500 > Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On 01/15/2015 03:22 PM, Jeff Layton wrote: >>> Ok, I tried to reproduce it with that and several variations but it >>> still doesn't seem to do it for me. Can you try the latest linux-next >>> tree and see if it's still reproducible there? >> >> It's still not in in today's -next, could you send me a patch for testing >> instead? >> > > Seems to be there for me: > > ----------------------[snip]----------------------- > /* > * This function is called on the last close of an open file. > */ > void locks_remove_file(struct file *filp) > { > /* ensure that we see any assignment of i_flctx */ > smp_rmb(); > > /* remove any OFD locks */ > locks_remove_posix(filp, filp); > ----------------------[snip]----------------------- > > That's actually the right place to put the barrier, I think. We just > need to ensure that this function sees any assignment to i_flctx that > occurred before this point. By the time we're here, we shouldn't be > getting any new locks that matter to this close since the fcheck call > should fail on any new requests. > > If that works, then I'll probably make some other changes to the set > and re-post it next week. > > Many thanks for helping me test this!
You're right, I somehow missed that.
But it doesn't fix the issue, I still see it happening, but it seems to be less frequent(?).
Thanks, Sasha
| |