From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Zimmer Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] fs/proc: Move kfree outside pde_unload_lock Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 12:05:26 -0500 Message-ID: <515F0456.9040803@sgi.com> References: <515D9F8A.2060505@sgi.com> <1365090819-25448-1-git-send-email-nzimmer@sgi.com> <20130404161140.GR21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <515DB465.1060004@sgi.com> <20130404204459.GU21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , "Eric W. Biederman" , David Woodhouse , To: Al Viro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130404204459.GU21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 04/04/2013 03:44 PM, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:12:05PM -0500, Nathan Zimmer wrote: > >> Ok I am cloning the tree now. >> It does look like the patches would conflict. >> I'll run some tests and take a deeper look. > FWIW, I've just pushed there a tentative patch that switches to hopefully > saner locking (head should be at cb673c115c1f99d3480471ca5d8cb3f89a1e3bee). > Is that more or less what you want wrt spinlock contention? > > One note: for any given pde_opener, close_pdeo() can be called at most > by two threads - final fput() and remove_proc_entry() resp. I think > the use of completion + flag is safe there; pde->pde_unload_lock > should serialize the critical areas. Something isn't quite right. I keep getting hung during boot. dracut: Mounted root filesystem /dev/sda8 dracut: Switching root I'll try to get some more info on a smaller box.