|
From: Don Z. <dz...@re...> - 2011-10-17 17:23:06
|
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 09:56:50AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > > All this lock busting probably isn't pretty and causes one to reflect what > > is going on here. But as long as we are going to keep the kmsg_dump > > design, changes like this seem necessary to make sure the locking stays > > sane(r) for now. > > So should we let the back-end know that locks have been busted? I worry > that we'll get through the pstore layer by blasting away at any locks that > get in our way - but then the backend (which may well have been written on > the assumption that pstore serialized calls to it) will not do anything > useful (and may cause its own hang). I was kinda alluding to something like that, when I said we probably need follow on patches to clean up the backend. But maybe it would be smarter to set a flag in pstore to let the backend know we busted the locks instead of letting them do panic checks themselves. I agree with your concerns. I really can't think of a good overall solution other than slowly step-by-step untangle things by making subtle changes, this round being the serialization of kmsg_dump(). My brain is to small to figure this out. I keep thinking about making an ascii art diagram to see all the various paths and their contexts, but then I keep finding more interesting things to do. :-) Perhaps we should do that and make some rules about what the back-end can and can not do when plugging into kmsg_dump. Cheers, Don |