[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4995208D.8050700@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:26:05 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
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()
Al Viro wrote:
> 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?
>
Sure, I'll try. :)
BTW, thread2's rmdir failed:
rmdir: /cgroup/0: No such file or directory
--
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