From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixes for vfs-scale and vfs-automount Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:28:57 +0800 Message-ID: <1298518137.2916.35.camel@perseus> References: <20110118040449.23109.33071.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <1295420817.3076.24.camel@perseus> <1297779902.13007.86.camel@perseus> <20110224015817.GQ22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1298516618.2916.20.camel@perseus> <20110224031439.GR22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nick Piggin , Trond Myklebust , David Howells , Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux NFS Mailing List To: Al Viro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110224031439.GR22723-3bDd1+5oDREiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 03:14 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > 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. > > > > 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. If you want to get hold of the test I'm using checkout autofs-RHEL-5, "cd autofs-tests/submount-test", "make rpm" and use the resulting rh-tests-autofs-submount-test-1.0-15.noarch.rpm. There are some beaker/rhts rpm dependencies. Let me know if it gets painful and I'll try and work out what you need. The test isn't very flash but it does stress autofs. Ha, I haven't even turned on my Ultrsparc 2 in months, it's only got an old version of Solaris on it now anyway, ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html