[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090213071816.GK28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:18:16 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: containers@...ts.osdl.org, Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636
mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2()
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 06:41:35AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
Aaaargh...
/*
* We don't have to hold all of the locks at the
* same time here because we know that we're the
* last reference to mnt and that no new writers
* can come in.
*/
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt)
continue;
spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
is *almost* OK. Modulo SMP cache coherency. We know that nothing should
be setting ->mnt to ours anymore, that's fine. But we do not know if
we'd seen *earlier* change done on CPU in question (not the one we
are running __mntput() on).
I probably would still like to use milder solution in the long run, but for
now let's check if turning that into
struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt) {
spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
continue;
}
prevents the problem, OK?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists