Re: fishy -put_inode usage in ntfs
On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 23:17 +, David Woodhouse wrote: On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:44 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: So every time we get a concurrent clear_inode() and iget() for the same inode what happens? We get your Failed to get bitmap attribute. every time? Or can clear_inode only be called once the inode is removed from icache? I thought we declared that the concurrent clear_inode() and read_inode() were a VFS bug, and fixed it? It's even fixed in 2.4 now isn't it? Is it? I must have missed this discussion. )-: Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov aia21 at cam.ac.uk (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: fishy -put_inode usage in ntfs
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 08:43 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: I thought we declared that the concurrent clear_inode() and read_inode() were a VFS bug, and fixed it? It's even fixed in 2.4 now isn't it? Is it? I must have missed this discussion. )-: Wasn't that why we backported __wait_on_freeing_inode() to 2.4? -- dwmw2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH-2.6] i_sem contention in 2.6.10 generic_file_llseek
Nikolai Joukov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While working on a new file systems latency profiler, which we call FSprof, we noticed that generic_file_llseek competes for i_sem if several processes access the same file. Yeah, this is a problem. Our f_pos atomicity handling sucks. I haven't forgotten about this issue, but it's backlogged a bit. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: Max mounted filesystems ?
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Frank Borich wrote: 118 total. When I attempt to mount the 57th one, I get Too many mounted Filesystems Sorry I don't know what the limitations are for non-anonymous filesystems. 57 seems a bit unusual though. __ From: Ian Kent [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 3/1/2005 6:53 PM To: Frank Borich Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: Max mounted filesystems ? On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Frank Borich wrote: Ext2, sorry. So how many filesystems do you need mounted? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:31 AM To: Frank Borich Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Max mounted filesystems ? On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Frank Borich wrote: I cannot seem to increase the maximum number of filesystems on my Red hat system running kernel 2.4.21-4.Elsmp. I have already tried to increase NR_SUPER in fs.h and fie-max, and file-nr in /proc/sys/fs, this does not help. When searching through documentation I see references to super-max file in /proc/sys/fs, but I do not see it on my system ? Please CC me on the reply as I am not on the list. What filesystem type? Ian - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
