From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 15 15:16:00 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from green.homeunix.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E6E16A4CE; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:15:59 +0000 (GMT) Received: from green.homeunix.org (green@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.homeunix.org (8.13.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3FFGiBr003129; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:16:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green@green.homeunix.org) Received: (from green@localhost) by green.homeunix.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j3FFGiUY003128; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:16:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from green) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:16:43 -0400 From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman To: Gunther Thiel Message-ID: <20050415151643.GQ981@green.homeunix.org> References: <1113566521.25223.41.camel@darthvader> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1113566521.25223.41.camel@darthvader> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stackable Filesystems/deadlock/VI_DOOMED X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:16:00 -0000 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. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\