[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [lvm-devel] LVM2 tools/lvmcmdlib.c lib/mm/memlock.h lib/mm ...

On 11/19/2009 12:59 PM, Petr Rockai wrote:
Marian Csontos<mcsontos redhat com>  writes:
Why not to zero _memlock_count here (and _memlock_count_daemon below)?
IMO, simple log_error is not enough. Though I understand this should not happen
under any conditions, the Murphy's Law says it will happen. And when it

...dropping below zero, will result in subsequent memlock_inc/memloc_inc_daemon
having no effect. (Q: How serious is this condition? Could it result in data
When the value is out of sync once, there's no really good way to
recover. Too high will prevent scans, too low will cause deadlocks, the
result always being non-functional code.
If it is non functional scans and not data corruption as I had thought, then it is safer to leave as is.
On the other hand, if it were zeroed, the possible deadlock could be
the only result.  However, this could happen only when memory is
unlocked before it is locked.
See above.

+ * The memlock_*_daemon functions will force the mlockall() call that we need
+ * to stay in memory, but they will have no effect on device scans (unlike
+ * normal memlock_inc and memlock_dec). Memory is kept locked as long as either
+ * of memlock or memlock_daemon is in effect.
+ */

Q: It does not work as proposed now. Does the "will" mean it will once
Why not? As far as I can tell, this works as advertised, and testing
confirms that.
Oh, I see. It must be the memlock function, what affects device scans.
I apologize.

I noticed some failures while looking at nevrast/waterfall, and in my zeal reviewed changes what might be causing troubles. Of course the changes were reviewed and tested carefully before, thus it is just my reasoning what's wrong here and the mistake is elsewhere.


-- Marian


lvm-devel mailing list
lvm-devel redhat com

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]