On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 07:42:41PM +0400, pluknet wrote: >> 2010/8/16 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel_at_gmail.com>: >> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:07:24PM +0400, pluknet wrote: >> >> On 16 August 2010 21:05, pluknet <pluknet_at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi. >> >> > >> >> > Seeing on mostly idle, recently updated current, while closing a file. >> >> > Presumably never reported on ML. >> [...] >> >> >> > Both LORs are valid. The fork performed deep inside the VFS call stack >> > is obviously problematic. As a workaround, you may fix the number of >> > nfsiods. >> > >> > Proper fix might consist of creating a shepherd thread which only task >> > is to act on the requests on creating new nfsiods. >> > >> > Would you try to implement this ? I will provide the assistance, if needed. >> >> Hmm.. I tried to move kproc_create() under shepherd thread and now stuck >> with cp process lockup in [bo_wwait] when cp'ing something on nfs: cp a b. >> Did I screw up something? >> See weird draft patch attached (weird, as I have no idea how to nicely >> exchange data between nfs_nfsiodnew() and shep_thread() thread). > Most likely, you loose the requests to create nfsiods since the > existing request in the global variable shep_chan can be overwritten > by new request. You should either sleep till existing request is serviced, > or form a queue. If you sleep for the request to be serviced, this presumably has the same LOR/deadlock possibility (unless locks are released before sleep), except now WITNESS can't see the LOR. Thanks, matthewReceived on Tue Aug 17 2010 - 14:16:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:06 UTC