On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 21:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > does the system truly lock up, or is this some transitional condition? > > > In any case, i agree that this should be debugged independently of the > > > pi_lock patch. > > > > Hmm, I forgot that you took out the bit_spin_lock fixes. I think this > > may be caused by them. I haven't look further into it yet. > > yeah, i took them out because they clashed with upstream changes. Note > that i meanwhile also introduced a per-bh lock, which might make it > easier to fix the deadlock: > > --- linux.orig/fs/buffer.c > +++ linux/fs/buffer.c > @@ -537,8 +537,7 @@ static void end_buffer_async_read(struct > * decide that the page is now completely done. > */ > first = page_buffers(page); > - local_irq_save(flags); > - bit_spin_lock(BH_Uptodate_Lock, &first->b_state); > + spin_lock_irqsave(&first->b_uptodate_lock, flags); > clear_buffer_async_read(bh); > unlock_buffer(bh); > tmp = bh; > > could jbd reuse this lock - or would it need another lock?
I think it can. I'm looking into right now, but first I'm updating my logdev to the latest release. I stripped it all out after submitting that pi_lock patch and now I have to put it back in! I didn't save the updates that I added earlier, so I'm reworking things now. The logging definitely helps me, since that was a major factor in getting that pi_lock patch done so quick. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
