[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:06:11 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
enwlinux@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix race between truncate and
__ext4_journalled_writepage()
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 02:33:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Yeah, that's nasty. Thanks for debugging this! However I think your fix
> reintroduces the original deadlock issues. do_journal_get_write_access()
> can end up blocking waiting for jbd2 thread to finish a commit while jbd2
> thread may be blocked waiting for the page to be unlocked.
>
> After some thought I don't think the deadlock is real since
> do_journal_get_write_access() will currently only block if a buffer is
> under writeout to the journal and at that point we don't wait for page
> locks anymore. Also ext4_write_begin() does the same in data=journal mode
> and we haven't observed deadlocks so far. But still things look really
> fragile here.
The reason why there are no deadlocks is the writeback in the commit
thread happens when the inode gets written back --- but that only
happens for data=ordered inodes, not data=journalled mode. I was a
little worried about what might happen when after the 'j' chattr
attribute gets set on an inode, and the inode was still on the ordered
flush list.
Hmm... I think we could also maybe fix this by having
ext4_change_inode_journal_flag() force a journal commit before setting
the JOURNAL_DATA flag. If we did that, we could just avoid dropping
the page_lock in __ext4_journalled_writepage() altogether.
What do you think?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists