lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Analyzed/Solved: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow

----- Original Message ----

> From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk; knobi@knobisoft.de; rjw@sisk.pl; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 6:45:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Analyzed/Solved: Booting 2.6.30-rc2-git7 very slow
>
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:49 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:18:45 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > [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.
>
> Well, there is no syscall with -f.
>
> I was trying various mount options to see if I could find a way to
> create bogons that could confuse scripts. I could create bogons
> in /etc/mtab with -f, or bogons in /proc/mounts by using --move. I
> could re-create the exact reported data with a combination of mount -n
> and mount --move. I could not get a double /proc/mounts entry without
> --move, and that seems unlikely to appear in boot scripts. So I still
> wonder how the heck it was accomplished.
>
> I also now wonder why you can --move mounts on top of one another, but
> beck with it, ignorance conserves braincells I may some day need :)
>

just to bring this back to my problem :-) Last week I reported that the "new" sysfs entry in /proc/mounts already comes out of initrd. Does this ring a bell?

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0904.3/03048.html

Cheers
Martin



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-06 09:59    [W:0.074 / U:50.388 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site