Re: Inotify problem [was Re: 2.6.13-rc6-mm1]

[George Anzinger]

Robert Love wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 09:33 -0400, John McCutchan wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 22:07 +1200, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
~
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:26 Warning: IMAP(gilly): removing wd 1022 from inotify fd 4
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:27 Warning: IMAP(gilly): inotify_add_watch returned 1023
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:27 Warning: IMAP(gilly): inotify_add_watch returned 1024
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:27 Warning: IMAP(gilly): removing wd 1024 from inotify fd 4
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:27 Error: IMAP(gilly): inotify_rm_watch() failed: 
> > > Invalid argument
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:27 Warning: IMAP(gilly): removing wd 1023 from inotify fd 4
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:28 Warning: IMAP(gilly): inotify_add_watch returned 1024
> > > dovecot: Aug 25 19:31:28 Warning: IMAP(gilly): inotify_add_watch returned 1024
> > >
> > > Note the incrementing wd value even though we are removing them as we go..
> >
> > What kernel are you running? The wd's should ALWAYS be incrementing, you
> > should never get the same wd as you did before. From your log, you are
> > getting the same wd (after you inotify_rm_watch it). I can reproduce
> > this bug on 2.6.13-rc7.
> >
> > idr_get_new_above 
> >
> > isn't returning something above.
> >
> > Also, the idr layer seems to be breaking when we pass in 1024. I can
> > reproduce that on my 2.6.13-rc7 system as well.
> >
> >
> > > This is using latest CVS of dovecot code and with 2.6.12-rc6-mm(1|2) kernel.
> > >
> > > Robert, John, what do you think?   Is this possibly related to the oops seen 
> > > in the log that I reported earlier?  (Which is still showing up 2-3 times per 
> > > day, btw)
> >
> > There is definitely something broken here.
>
>
> Jim, George-
>
> We are seeing a problem in the idr layer.  If we do idr_find(1024) when,
> say, a low valued idr, like, zero, is unallocated, NULL is returned.

I think the best thing is to take idr into user space and emulate the 
problem usage.  To this end, from the log it appears that you _might_ be 
moving between 0, 1 and 2 entries increasing the number each time.  It 
also appears that the failure happens here:
add 1023
add 1024
find 1024  or is it the remove that fails?  It also looks like 1024 got 
allocated twice.  Am I reading the log correctly?

So, is it correct to assume that the tree is empty save these two at 
this time?  I am just trying to figure out what the test program needs 
to do.



--
George Anzinger   george@xxxxxxxxxx
HRT (High-res-timers):  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/