Messages in this thread |  | | From | Andreas Dilger <> | Date | Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:57:51 -0600 | Subject | Re: 2.4.11-pre2 fs/buffer.c: invalidate: busy buffer |
| |
On Oct 03, 2001 04:10 +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In article <20011002190547.A3323@cm.nu>, Shane Wegner <shane@cm.nu> wrote: > >I am getting the following out of fs/buffer.c immediately > >after bootup. The kernel is 2.4.11-pre2 when the message > >was added. > > > >Oct 2 17:35:08 continuum kernel: invalidate: busy buffer > >Oct 2 17:35:08 continuum last message repeated 7 times > > > >I assume this is an error though it doesn't seem to say so. > > Well, it's an error, but it's an error in that LVM invalidates the block > devices a bit too much, and the message really tells you that the code > refused to invalidate stuff that must not be invalidated. > > It's harmless, although I hope that the LVM people will become a bit > less invalidation-happy as a result of the warning (it's always happened > before, it just hasn't warned about it in earlier kernels).
Given that 2.4.10+ have devices in page cache, is there _any_ reason why what the kernel sees on a device would be different than what user space reads from a device? I don't think it was ever an issue between whole-disk-dev and partition-dev aliasing, since both user-space and the kernel are accessing the same device.
If not, then we can just change the PV_FLUSH code to not do invalidate_buffers() on the device for kernels 2.4.10+. There never was a very strong reason to do it for disk identification.
Cheers, Andreas
CC'd LVM folks to get their input on this. -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert
- 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/
|  |