On 09/12/2013 12:59 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:40:08 +0200 Jack Wang <xjtuwjp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 09/11/2013 01:54 AM, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:09:05 +0200 Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> snip >>>> >>>> Hi Neil, >>>> >>>> I notice you send out pull request for md update, which include fix for >>>> this bug. >>>> >>>> I think we'd better include the fix to stable tree at least from 3.4 >>>> above, what do you think? >>> >>> I don't think it is a situation that is at all like to occur in normal usage, >>> so it doesn't seem justified for -stable. >>> >>> Do you disagree? Did you ever experience the deadlock in normal usage or >>> only in artificial situations? >> >> Yes, we do see this BUG in our production environment, so I think it's >> good to include it in stable tree. >> > > I was hoping you would explain how.... > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but as I see it the deadlock can only occur if > you run "mdadm --stop" while some other process has the block device open > and is writing to it. That seems like a dumb thing to do and my suggest > would be to not do it. > Is there a good reason why you try to stop the array while it is being > written to. > Would it make sense for the process to open the block device with O_EXCL. > This would encourage exclusive access, and would also prevent the deadlock > from happening. > > NeilBrown > Thanks Neil for suggestion. I will look into the code which is developed by other colleagues, and we will fix that if it is. Regards, Jack -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
