On Thu 05-03-09 11:16:37, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:00:01AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Thu 05-03-09 07:45:54, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > after ~1hour of running. Previously, the new warnings would start immediately > > > and hang would happen in under 5 minutes. > > A quick grep seems to indicate that you've still missed a few cases, > > haven't you? I still see the same problem in > > drop_caches.c:drop_pagecache_sb() scanning, inode.c:invalidate_inodes() > > scanning, and dquot.c:add_dquot_ref() scanning. > > Otherwise the patch looks fine. > > I thought they should be OK; drop_pagecache_sb doesn't play with flags, > invalidate_inodes won't if refcount is elevated, and I think add_dquot_ref > won't if writecount is not elevated... Ah, ok, you are probably right. > But maybe that's abit fragile and it would be better policy to always > skip I_NEW in these traverals? Yes, it seems too fragile to me. I'm not saying we have to forbid everything for I_NEW inodes but I think we should set clear simple rules what is protected by I_NEW and then verify that all sites which can come across such inodes obey them. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
