Return-Path: Received: from fieldses.org ([174.143.236.118]:34194 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751407Ab0JYBJ3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:09:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:09:24 -0400 From: "J. Bruce Fields" To: Menyhart Zoltan Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, neilb@suse.de Subject: Re: "xprt" reference count drops to 0 Message-ID: <20101025010923.GB11470@fieldses.org> References: <4C7E4469.70807@duchatelet.net> <4CAAE046.5060209@bull.net> <20101021203801.GA12038@fieldses.org> <4CC1A722.4060907@bull.net> <20101022212007.GB22837@fieldses.org> <20101022230111.GC22837@fieldses.org> <20101022232133.GD22837@fieldses.org> <20101023033250.GA24630@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20101023033250.GA24630@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:32:50PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 07:21:33PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 07:01:12PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 05:20:07PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 05:00:50PM +0200, Menyhart Zoltan wrote: > > > > > J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > > > >On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:22:30AM +0200, Menyhart Zoltan wrote: > > > > > >>Due to some race conditions, the reference count can become 0 > > > > > >>while "xprt" is still on a "pool": > > > > > > > > > > > >Apologies, your email got buried in my inbox.... > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >>WARNING: at lib/kref.c:43 kref_get+0x23/0x2d() > > > > > >> [] kref_get+0x23/0x2d > > > > > >> [] svc_xprt_get+0x12/0x14 [sunrpc] > > > > > >> [] svc_recv+0x2db/0x78a [sunrpc] > > > > > > > > > > > >Which kernel exactly did you see this on? Is it reproduceable? > > > > > > > > > > I saw it on a 2.6.32. > > > > > It has not been corrected for the 2.6.36-rc3 yet. > > Doh. Wait, when you say "has not been corrected on 2.6.36-rc3", do you > mean you've actually *seen* the problem occur on 2.6.36-rc3? > > If not, it's more likely you're seeing the problem that was fixed by > 1b644b6e6f6160ae35ce4b52c2ca89ed3e356e18, in 2.6.34-rc1. But, as long as we're here, I think there's a minor fix and some cleanup we could do; patches follow.--b.