Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ...

[manish]

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

>On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 01:42:32PM -0700, manish wrote:
>
>>Marc-Christian Petersen wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday 27 May 2003 22:20, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>>
>>>Hi Andrea,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>1. Stock 2.4.20
>>>>>2. 2.4.20 with the io_request_lock removed.
>>>>>The tests on the first one are still going. The tests on the second one
>>>>>showed processes getting stuck for long times (> 5 minutes) and not
>>>>>paused ...
>>>>>
>>>>sorry if it's a dumb question but what is the "io_request_lock removed"
>>>>thing? Hope you didn't delete any io_request_lock, if you did you can
>>>>get worse things than crashes (i.e. mm/fs corruption). the pausing bug
>>>>was a genuine race (quite innocent, if you could trigger a disk unplug
>>>>you could recover from it)
>>>>
>>>>Andrea
>>>>
>>>funny. I asked him the same ;)
>>>
>>>see his response:
>>>
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>>what is this io_request_lock patch you are talking about?
>>>>
>>>>ciao, Marc
>>>>
>>>We made some changes to the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock 
>>>and replace with queue_lock and host_lock.
>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>ciao, Marc
>>>
>>We made a change in the 2.4.20 kernel to remove the io_request_lock and 
>>replace with the host_lock and the queue_lock.  Probably, not a right 
>>thing to do
>>
>
>right you are, but never mind, only remeber e2fsck the fs before
>booting the box so you don't risk fs corruption later with the solid
>kernels.
>
>Andrea
>
So, does it imply that we cannot remove the io_request_lock in 2.4 at all?

Thanks
Manish