Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ...

[Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)]

On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:42:32PM -0700, manish wrote:
> Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday 27 May 2003 22:20, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> >Hi Andrea,
> >
> >
> >>>1. Stock 2.4.20
> >>>2. 2.4.20 with the io_request_lock removed.
> >>>The tests on the first one are still going. The tests on the second one
> >>>showed processes getting stuck for long times (> 5 minutes) and not
> >>>paused ...
> >>>
> >>sorry if it's a dumb question but what is the "io_request_lock removed"
> >>thing? Hope you didn't delete any io_request_lock, if you did you can
> >>get worse things than crashes (i.e. mm/fs corruption). the pausing bug
> >>was a genuine race (quite innocent, if you could trigger a disk unplug
> >>you could recover from it)
> >>
> >>Andrea
> >>
> >funny. I asked him the same ;)
> >
> >see his response:
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >>what is this io_request_lock patch you are talking about?
> >>
> >>ciao, Marc
> >>
> >We made some changes to the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock 
> >and replace with queue_lock and host_lock.
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >ciao, Marc
> >
> We made a change in the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock and 
> replace with the host_lock and the queue_lock.  Probably, not a right 
> thing to do

right you are, but never mind, only remeber e2fsck the fs before
booting the box so you don't risk fs corruption later with the solid
kernels.

Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/