Re: kernel 2.6 and simulated flock() with posix locks

[Thanos Chatziathanassiou <tchatzi-nz9JlX+3IF8@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1513 bytes --]

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 03:20:29PM +0200, Thanos Chatziathanassiou wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been trying to replace kernel 2.4 in a web server mounting its Document Root via NFS with kernel 2.6 and faced a rather disturbing problem.
>> About 1/2 hour after starting, the server would stop serving requests though it seemed fine.
>> Earlier 2.6 kernels exhibited the ``do_vfs_lock: VFS is out of sync with lock manager!'' symptom, later (when this was changed to a dprintk()) just sat there.
>> No apparent error apart from apache compaining ``[error] server reached MaxClients setting, consider raising the MaxClients setting'', unable to serve any requests.
>>
>> This issue does not surface under 2.4, where everything works as expected.
>> I came across this 
>> (http://blog.notreally.org/articles/2007/12/19/modifying-a-live-linux-kernel/) 
>> where apparently they faced the same problem, but their solution (which 
>> seemed a little crude) resulted in apache spitting ``There are no 
>> available locks'' messages (or roughly this, translated from my regional 
>> settings).
>>
>> Is there any solution to this or a way to get 2.4 behavior under 2.6 ?
>>     
>
> I'm a little confused--how do you know that the problem you face is the
> same as the one described on the blog above?  Are you re-exporting NFS
> via Samba?
>
> --b.
>   
Indeed I am. But I am willing to convince you ;) What kind of debug info 
would I need to collect to find out what really the problem is ?


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3229 bytes --]