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

[George Anzinger]

John McCutchan wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 11:54 -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
>
> > 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:
~
> > 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?
>
>
> You are reading the log correctly. There are two bugs. One is that if we
> pass X to idr_get_new_above, it can return X again (doesn't ever seem to
> return < X). The other problem is that the find fails on 1024 (and 2048
> if we skip 1024).

That IS strange.  1024 is on a "level" boundry, but then next level is 
2**15, not 2**11.  I will take a look.

> > 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.
>
>
> Yes that is the exact scenario. Only 2 id's are used at any given time,
> and once we hit 1024 things break. This doesn't happen when the tree is
> not empty.
>
> Thanks for looking at this!

--
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/