From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:57:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:57:48 -0400 Received: from h24-64-71-161.cg.shawcable.net ([24.64.71.161]:7934 "EHLO webber.adilger.int") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 00:57:37 -0400 From: Andreas Dilger Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:57:51 -0600 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lvm-devel@sistina.com Subject: Re: 2.4.11-pre2 fs/buffer.c: invalidate: busy buffer Message-ID: <20011002225751.A8954@turbolinux.com> Mail-Followup-To: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lvm-devel@sistina.com In-Reply-To: <20011002190547.A3323@cm.nu> <9pe345$8ic$1@penguin.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9pe345$8ic$1@penguin.transmeta.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Oct 03, 2001 04:10 +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In article <20011002190547.A3323@cm.nu>, Shane Wegner wrote: > >I am getting the following out of fs/buffer.c immediately > >after bootup. The kernel is 2.4.11-pre2 when the message > >was added. > > > >Oct 2 17:35:08 continuum kernel: invalidate: busy buffer > >Oct 2 17:35:08 continuum last message repeated 7 times > > > >I assume this is an error though it doesn't seem to say so. > > Well, it's an error, but it's an error in that LVM invalidates the block > devices a bit too much, and the message really tells you that the code > refused to invalidate stuff that must not be invalidated. > > It's harmless, although I hope that the LVM people will become a bit > less invalidation-happy as a result of the warning (it's always happened > before, it just hasn't warned about it in earlier kernels). Given that 2.4.10+ have devices in page cache, is there _any_ reason why what the kernel sees on a device would be different than what user space reads from a device? I don't think it was ever an issue between whole-disk-dev and partition-dev aliasing, since both user-space and the kernel are accessing the same device. If not, then we can just change the PV_FLUSH code to not do invalidate_buffers() on the device for kernels 2.4.10+. There never was a very strong reason to do it for disk identification. Cheers, Andreas CC'd LVM folks to get their input on this. -- Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto, \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?" http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert