Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:14:39 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixes for vfs-scale and vfs-automount |
| |
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:03:38AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> I also have a sick feeling that dentrys may become negative at any point > after __d_lookup_rcu() .....
Yes. To get stability of ->d_inode (assuming the sucker isn't pinned down in normal way by ->d_count) you need ->d_lock.
> > Ho-hum... I can reach RHTS, but I'd rather do that at home boxen, if > > possible... Has it been reproduced on UP boxen with SMP kernels, BTW? > > Nope, I'd need to build a kernel specifically for that. I'm not sure how > useful that would be though since the test is specifically meant to > expose problems with multiple concurrent processes accessing an > automount tree. I don't see any problem running the Connectathon tests > which is essentially one automount and one client process.
Heh... No, it's just that the only SMP box I have locally right now is dual ultrasparc. Anyway, I can live with RHTS.
| |