From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636 mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2()
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:18:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090213071816.GK28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090213064135.GJ28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 06:41:35AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
Aaaargh...
/*
* We don't have to hold all of the locks at the
* same time here because we know that we're the
* last reference to mnt and that no new writers
* can come in.
*/
for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt)
continue;
spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
is *almost* OK. Modulo SMP cache coherency. We know that nothing should
be setting ->mnt to ours anymore, that's fine. But we do not know if
we'd seen *earlier* change done on CPU in question (not the one we
are running __mntput() on).
I probably would still like to use milder solution in the long run, but for
now let's check if turning that into
struct mnt_writer *cpu_writer = &per_cpu(mnt_writers, cpu);
spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt) {
spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
continue;
}
prevents the problem, OK?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-13 7:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-05 3:23 [cgroup or VFS ?] WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636 mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2() Li Zefan
2009-02-09 8:40 ` Andrew Morton
2009-02-09 8:49 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-09 11:03 ` Al Viro
2009-02-09 11:58 ` Al Viro
2009-02-10 5:47 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-09 9:34 ` Al Viro
2009-02-09 11:30 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-12 6:10 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-12 6:24 ` Al Viro
2009-02-12 6:33 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-12 6:54 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-12 7:07 ` Al Viro
2009-02-13 5:09 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-13 5:47 ` Al Viro
2009-02-13 6:12 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-13 6:31 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-13 6:41 ` Al Viro
2009-02-13 7:18 ` Al Viro [this message]
2009-02-13 7:26 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-16 1:29 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-16 2:38 ` Al Viro
2009-02-16 2:47 ` Li Zefan
2009-02-16 2:57 ` Al Viro
2009-02-09 17:48 ` Dave Hansen
2009-02-09 18:11 ` Arjan van de Ven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090213071816.GK28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizf@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox