LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Erez Zadok <>
To: Hugh Dickins <>
Cc: Erez Zadok <>,,
Subject: Re: unionfs_copy_attr_times oopses
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:06:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:30:46 GMT." <>

In message <>, Hugh Dickins writes:

> Hi Erez,
> Aside from the occasional "unionfs: new lower inode mtime" messages
> on directories (which I've got into the habit of ignoring now), the
> only problem I'm still suffering with unionfs over tmpfs (not tested
> any other fs's below it recently) is oops in unionfs_copy_attr_times.
> I believe I'm working with your latest: 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 plus the four
> patches you posted to lkml on 26 Jan.  But this problem has been around
> for a while before that: I'd been hoping to debug it myself, but taken
> too long to make too little progress, so now handing over to you.
> The oops occurs while doing repeated "make -j20" kernel builds in a
> unionfs mount of a tmpfs (though I doubt tmpfs is relevant): most of
> my testing was while swapping, but today I find that's irrelevant,
> and it should happen much quicker without.  SMP kernels (4 cpus),
> I haven't tried UP; happens with or without PREEMPT, may just be
> coincidence that it happens quicker on the machines with PREEMPT.
> Most commonly it's unionfs_copy_attr_times called from unionfs_create,
> but that's probably just the most common route in this workload:
> I've seen it also when called from unionfs_rename or unionfs_open or
> unionfs_unlink.  It looks like there's a locking or refcounting bug,
> hence a race: the unionfs_inode_info which unionfs_copy_attr_times
> is working on gets changed underneath it, so it oopses on NULL
> lower_inodes.


Check out my latest set of patches (which correspond to release 2.2.4 of
Unionfs).  Thanks to your info and the patch, I was able to trigger several
races more frequently, and fix them.  I've tested my code with make -j N
(for N=4 and N=20), on a 4 cpu machine a well as a 2 cpu machine (w/
different amounts of memory and CPU speeds, also 32-bit vs 64-bit); I ran a
kernel compile for ~10-12 hours.  With the patches I just posted, I wasn't
able to trigger any of the WARN_ON's in unionfs_copy_attr_times.  I also
tried it while flushing caches via /proc, and/or performing branch-mgmt
commands in unionfs.

Give it a good shake and let me know what you find.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-02-17  3:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-01 20:30 Hugh Dickins
2008-02-01 22:34 ` Erez Zadok
2008-02-17  3:06 ` Erez Zadok [this message]
2008-02-20  0:13   ` Hugh Dickins

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: unionfs_copy_attr_times oopses' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).