Closed #645 via 5c27f9187a229d792514242b32561a5079fcfa3a.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/645#event-1742932192
--
openzfs:
andy-js approved this pull request.
I've seen the deadlock.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/645#pullrequestreview-129120299
behlendorf approved this pull request.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/645#pullrequestreview-128081663
--
openzfs:
Ramzec commented on this pull request.
> @@ -2940,7 +2916,8 @@ dbuf_rele_and_unlock(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, void *tag)
db->db.db_size, db);
mutex_exit(>db_mtx);
- if (db->db_caching_status ==
Ramzec requested changes on this pull request.
> @@ -2940,7 +2916,8 @@ dbuf_rele_and_unlock(dmu_buf_impl_t *db, void *tag)
db->db.db_size, db);
mutex_exit(>db_mtx);
- if (db->db_caching_status ==
@Ramzec This is 3rd hand info... would be great if someone from Nexenta
(@skiselkov ?) could file a bug report.
```
Thread A is evicting dbufs that are related to dnodeA
dnode_evict_dbufs(dnoneA) enters dn_dbufs_mtx after that walks the AVL of dbufs
and calls:
Could you please explain how the change handles the 3rd problem?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/645#issuecomment-394149250
--
