On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 04:51:38PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 26 of November 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 of November 2007, David Chinner wrote:
> > > Now there's a message that I haven't seen in about 3 years.
> > >
> > > It indicates that the linux inode connected to the xfs_inode is not
> > > the correct one. i.e. that the linux inode cache is out of step with
> > > the XFS inode cache.
> > >
> > > Basically, that is not supposed to happen. I suspect that the way
> > > threads are frozen is resulting in an inode lookup racing with
> > > a reclaim. The reclaim thread gets stopped after any use threads,
> > > and so we could have the situation that a process blocked in lookup
> > > has the XFS inode reclaimed and reused before it gets unblocked.
> > >
> > > The question is why is it happening now when none of that code in
> > > XFS has changed?
> > >
> > > Rafael, when are threads frozen? Only when they schedule or call
> > > try_to_freeze()?
> > Kernel threads freeze only when they call try_to_freeze(). User space tasks
> > freeze while executing the signals handling code.
> > > Did the freezer mechanism change in 2.6.23 (this is on 220.127.116.11)?
> > Yes. Kernel threads are not sent fake signals by the freezer any more.
> Ah, sorry, this change has been merged after 2.6.23. However, before 2.6.23
> we had another important change that caused all kernel threads to have
> PF_NOFREEZE set by default, unless they call set_freezable() explicitly.
So try_to_freeze() will never freeze a thread if it has not been
set_freezable()? And xfsbufd will never be frozen?
SGI Australian Software Group