On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 04:54:54PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >> Regardless of whether reordering is wrong or not, do we see how it can >> fix the WARNINGs/oopses? Because it does seem to. I've tried to revert >> just this part: >> >> - *inode = d_backing_inode(dentry); >> negative = d_is_negative(dentry); >> + *inode = d_backing_inode(dentry); >> >> And got: >> >> [ 976.609688] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12126 at fs/namei.c:1587 >> lookup_fast+0x3fa/0x450() >> [ 976.626768] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12126 at fs/namei.c:3123 >> path_openat+0x12bc/0x1520() >> >> in 15 minutes. > > dentry going from negative to positive lookup_fast() > fetch NULL ->d_inode > store non-NULL ->d_inode > store new ->d_flags > fetch new ->d_flags > check ->d_seq > bump ->d_seq by 2 > > Change the order of fetches and you'll get rid of that scenario. > >> In particular, applying this on top the previous patch will be >> inconclusive, because I already don't see the warnings. > > Apply it with that reordering reversed, please. OK, just wanted to make sure that we keep track of the situation. Restarted testing with combined patch. Here is it just in case: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/67fe363d5ce2e2b06c71/raw/4d1b6c23f8dff7e0f8e2e3cab7e50208fddb0570/gistfile1.txt -- 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
