[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110801052414.GA21021@localhost>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:24:14 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: xfstests 073 regression
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:47:49AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 11:10:14PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 09:44:22PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > This patch fixes the hang for me.
> >
> > Thanks. It'd be better to get the _simple and tested_ fix into 3.1-rc1.
> > (if anyone find major problems with the fix, please speak up)
>
> Yes, I already have, a couple of hours before you sent this:
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg47357.html
Err I found it in my spam folder.. and added you to the white list :)
> We haven't found the root cause of the problem, and writeback cannot
> hold off grab_super_passive() because writeback only holds read
> locks on s_umount, just like grab_super_passive. So if
> grab_super_passive is failing, there is some other, not yet
> unidentified actor causing this problem....
Yeah sorry, I totally overlooked the read lock. Since Linus has
pointed out the possibility of read-write-read deadlock, I'll jump
to your more recent email for the root cause.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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