[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] add check do_direct_IO() return val

On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Badari Pulavarty wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 14:45 -0700, Zach Brown wrote:
>>> I am also taking a look at it right now.
>> Are we having a race to write a little test app that reproduces the
>> problem? :)
> Nope. Feel free to write the test case.

Well, I'm having a heck of a time getting this to fail. It looks
possible, though. Joe, were you guys able to narrow it down to a
reproducible test case? Do you have any oops output messages from
the crashes?

It looks like it takes a very particular set of circumstances to
actually crash after relying on an uninitialized map_bh. (see the
blkfactor, buffer_new(), and this_chunk_blocks tests in dio_zero_block

> I am just looking at the code
> to see what needs to be done.

It looks like the unconditional dio_cleanup() and dio_zero_block()
calls outside the nseg loop are relying on state which might not have
been built up. _zero_block() tests map_bh's flags without them being
set. _cleanup could, in some crazy world, get confused if we managed
to get here with a 0 nr_segs because dio->head and ->tail wouldn't be

So we could initialize some more fields at the start of
direct_io_worker for the benefit of these cleanup calls. Or we could
conditionally call them based on some other indicator of progress.
Neither really thrills me.

And I don't have a test case to verify changes with. Meh.

How do you feel about initializing the dio with kzalloc() and only
initializing the fields that we rely on being non-zero, and
commenting the hell out of it?

- z
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-31 01:41    [W:0.047 / U:4.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site