Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Mar 2006 16:35:53 +0530 | From | Balbir Singh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Busy inodes after unmount, be more verbose in generic_shutdown_super |
| |
> >Given that background, I thought our main concern was with respect to > >unmount. The race was between shrink_dcache_parent() (called from unmount) > >and shrink_dcache_memory() (called from the allocator), hence the fix > >for the race condition. > Partial fix doesn't make much sense from my point of view. >
IMHO, It was not a partial fix. slab_drop() addition changed the assumptions used by this fix
> >I just noticied that 2.6.16-rc* now seems to have drop_slab() where > >PF_MEMALLOC is not set. So, we can still race with my fix if there > >if /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches is written to and unmount is done in parallel. > > > >A simple hack would be to set PF_MEMALLOC in drop_slab(), but I do not > >think it is a good idea. > Yeah, playing with PF_MEMALLOC can be not so good idea :/ > And as it doesn't help in other cases it looks unpromising...
Yes, agreed.
> > >>>Have you had any other feedback on this? > >>here it is :) > >Thanks for your detailed feedback > Sorry, that I did it too late :/ >
No problem
> Thanks, > Kirill >
Balbir - 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/
| |