Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixes for vfs-scale and vfs-automount
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2011-02-24 03:14:39
Also in:
linux-nfs, lkml
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: 2011-02-24 03:14:39
Also in:
linux-nfs, lkml
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.
quoted
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.