Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2009 15:49:11 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Analyzed/Solved: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow |
| |
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:18:45 +0200 Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:08 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 01:17:55AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > > > Questions remains: was this intentional? It breaks existing userspace and should therefore be considered a regression - right? On the other hand, it will never be a problem for RHEL-4/5 kernels, unless the change in 2.6.29 gets backported. Any ideas? > > > > > > > > > > afaik that was unintentional and was probably a mistake. > > > > > > > > > > I wonder how we did that. > > > > > > > > <paste> > > > > > [hotplug]# grep sysfs /proc/mounts > > > > > none /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0 > > > > > /sys /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0 > > > > > > > > ___(I wonder how the heck that is accomplished) > > > > > > Beats me. I'm not seeing likely changes in fs/proc/base.c or around > > > show_mountinfo(). Maybe sysfs broke in an ingenious way. (hopefully > > > cc's viro). > > > > Er... Somebody mounting sysfs twice? From some init script and from > > /etc/fstab, perhaps? That definitely looks like two mount(2) had to > > have been done to cause that... > > Yeah, but how does one go about doing that? > > Using mount -f, I can convince mount to succeed, but I still have only > one entry in /proc/mounts, despite what my mount binary imagines. > > marge:..sys/vm # grep sysfs /proc/mounts > sysfs /sys sysfs rw,relatime 0 0 > > marge:..sys/vm # mount|grep sysfs > sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw) > sys on /sys type sysfs (rw) > /sys on /sys type sysfs (rw) >
So /proc/mounts is OK and /etc/mtab is wrong?
Obvious next step is to strace `mount -f', see what's happening around sys_mount(), please.
| |