Re: [Patch] jbd commit code deadloop when installing Linux

[Zou Nan hai <nanhai.zou@intel.com>]

On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 16:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2006 14:02:57 +0800
> Zou Nan hai <nanhai.zou@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > However I think cond_resched_lock and cond_resched_softirq also need fix
> > > > to make the semantic consistent.
> > > > 
> > > > Please check the following patch.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ah.  I think the return value from these functions should mean "something
> > > disruptive happened", if you like.
> > > 
> > > See, the callers of cond_resched_lock() aren't interested in whether
> > > cond_resched_lock() actually called schedule().  They want to know whether
> > > cond_resched_lock() dropped the lock.  Because if the lock was dropped, the
> > > caller needs to take some special action, regardless of whether schedule()
> > > was finally called.
> > > 
> > > So I think the patch I queued is OK, agree?
> > 
> >   I am afraid the code like cond_resched_lock check in
> > fs/jbd/checkpoint.c log_do_checkpoint may fall into endless retry in
> > some condition, will it?
> 
> Oh crap, yes.  If need_resched() and system_state==SYSTEM_BOOTING then
> cond_resched_lock() will drop the lock but won't schedule.  So it'll return
> true but won't clear need_resched() and the caller will lock up.
> 
> So if cond_resched_foo() ends up dropping the lock it _must_ call
> schedule() to clear need_resched().
> 
> So, how about this (it needs some code comments!)
> 
> 

 The patch works for the install test env.
 However I still have some concern on cond_resched_lock(), on an UP 
kernel it will return 1 if schedule happen, but actually it does not
drop any lock, that semantic seems to be different to SMP kernel. 

Though the only code I found that checks the return value of
cond_resched_lock is in checkpoint.c...

Zou Nan hai