Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 May 2001 17:30:51 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.4.5 |
| |
On Sat, May 26, 2001 at 12:22:59PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > @@ -1416,11 +1416,9 @@ > > */ > > run_task_queue(&tq_disk); > > > > - /* > > - * Set our state for sleeping, then check again for buffer heads. > > - * This ensures we won't miss a wake_up from an interrupt. > > - */ > > - wait_event(buffer_wait, nr_unused_buffer_heads >= MAX_BUF_PER_PAGE); > > + current->policy |= SCHED_YIELD; > > + __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > > + schedule(); > > goto try_again; > > } > > This cannot possibly fix the problem because this code is > never reached. > > What was observed in the backtraces by arjan, ben, marcelo > and people at IBM was: > > create_buffers -> get_unused_buffer_head -> __alloc_pages > > with the system looping infinitely in __alloc_pages. The > code you are changing above ONLY gets reached in case the > __alloc_pages (and thus, get_unused_buffer_head) returns > failure.
Fine, then post the strict __alloc_pages patch, after that you will run into the above code. Those are different issues, like I'm claiming since the first place, your patch didn't addressed the above.
I definitely agree that if __alloc_pages itself deadlocks the above cannot make differences.
Andrea - 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/
| |