Re: [cgroup or VFS ?] WARNING: at fs/namespace.c:636 mntput_no_expire+0xac/0xf2()

[Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>]

> OK...  So here's what we really want:
> 	* we know that nobody will set cpu_writer->mnt to mnt from now on
> 	* all changes to that sucker are done under cpu_writer->lock
> 	* we want the laziest equivalent of
> 		spin_lock(&cpu_writer->lock);
> 		if (likely(cpu_writer->mnt != mnt)) {
> 			spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
> 			continue;
> 		}
> 		/* do stuff */
> that would make sure we won't miss earlier setting of ->mnt done by another
> CPU.
> 

If this is done, I'll be available to test it.

> Anyway, for now (HEAD and all -stable starting with 2.6.26) we want this:
> 

And here is my:

Tested-by: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>

> --- fs/namespace.c	2009-01-25 21:45:31.000000000 -0500
> +++ fs/namespace.c	2009-02-15 21:31:14.000000000 -0500
> @@ -614,9 +614,11 @@
>  	 */
>  	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);
> +		if (cpu_writer->mnt != mnt) {
> +			spin_unlock(&cpu_writer->lock);
> +			continue;
> +		}
>  		atomic_add(cpu_writer->count, &mnt->__mnt_writers);
>  		cpu_writer->count = 0;
>  		/*