Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:16:43 -0400 From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> To: Gunther Thiel <gth@cmex.de> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stackable Filesystems/deadlock/VI_DOOMED Message-ID: <20050415151643.GQ981@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <1113566521.25223.41.camel@darthvader> References: <1113566521.25223.41.camel@darthvader>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:02:02PM +0200, Gunther Thiel wrote: > Had posted this one to freebsd-fs but there is apparently not too much going on. > So, am retrying it here. > > I am working on stackable filesystems using 5.3-STABLE and figured that > there are still deadlock problems when using the nullfs template on a > busy, stressed machine. > >From what I have experienced, apparently the deadlock occurs when trying > to get a new node while it's being recycled. > > What I have seen in the VFS code of the CURRENT branch looks very > promising (VI_DOOMED instead of VI_XLOCK!), but as I have no clue when > new VFS stuff will be in a solid state, I wanted to ask if the problem > is at all solveable with the VFS concept under 5.3 and if so, how. > If it is not solveable (which is my personal guess) would someone mind > giving me a hint on dependencies when I would only like to use as much > stuff from CURRENT to move to new VFS concept (with all the ostentatious > risks)? You should probably just start developing on 6.0-CURRENT; it is slated to become -STABLE not too far in the future. Someone else should tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think these changes are remotely small enough to merge back into 5.x. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050415151643.GQ981>