Re: Inotify problem [was Re: 2.6.13-rc6-mm1]

[George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

John McCutchan wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
> 
>>Robert Love wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
~
>>I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the 
>>problem usage.  To this end, from the log it appears that you _might_ be 
>>moving between 0, 1 and 2 entries increasing the number each time.  It 
>>also appears that the failure happens here:
>>add 1023
>>add 1024
>>find 1024  or is it the remove that fails?  It also looks like 1024 got 
>>allocated twice.  Am I reading the log correctly?
> 
> 
> You are reading the log correctly. There are two bugs. One is that if we
> pass X to idr_get_new_above, it can return X again (doesn't ever seem to
> return < X). The other problem is that the find fails on 1024 (and 2048
> if we skip 1024).

That IS strange.  1024 is on a "level" boundry, but then next level is 
2**15, not 2**11.  I will take a look.

> 
> 
>>So, is it correct to assume that the tree is empty save these two at 
>>this time?  I am just trying to figure out what the test program needs 
>>to do.
> 
> 
> Yes that is the exact scenario. Only 2 id's are used at any given time,
> and once we hit 1024 things break. This doesn't happen when the tree is
> not empty.
> 
> Thanks for looking at this!

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
HRT (High-res-timers):  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/