On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:08:14PM +, David Holland wrote:
> It's becoming clear that this is something I'm going to need to wade
> into. Much as I've been trying to avoid it. :-/
>
> There's a (perfectly natural) tendency to try to fix synchronization
> problems by adding states -- extra flag
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 06:09:00PM +0200, Adam Hamsik wrote:
> Sorry I haven't read this thread until today. I think that it would be
> good to test my vreclaim patched kernel it might help to resolve your
> problem. But I don't think it is a solution see above.
Your patch won't help. It only
On Sep,Tuesday 22 2009, at 9:42 PM, Antti Kantee wrote:
On Tue Sep 22 2009 at 21:04:14 +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
that's not an issue with the reference count. It's an issue with
vclean()
calling VOP_RECLAIM() even if the refcount is greater than 1, and
vrelel() calling vclean() even if the
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:42:59PM +0300, Antti Kantee wrote:
> Blah, I didn't even want to think about this migrane-inducer now.
> Maybe people who have recently worked on vnode reclaiming could instead
> be the ones to comment?
It's becoming clear that this is something I'm going to need to w
