[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090305000603.GA30748@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:06:03 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix ext4_free_inode vs. ext4_claim_inode race
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 12:36:59AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:38:41PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > I was seeing fsck errors on inode bitmaps after a 4 thread
> > dbench run on a 4 cpu machine:
> >
> > Inode bitmap differences: -50736 -(50752--50753) etc...
> >
> > I believe that this is because ext4_free_inode() uses atomic
> > bitops, and although ext4_new_inode() *used* to also use atomic
> > bitops for synchronization, commit
> > 393418676a7602e1d7d3f6e560159c65c8cbd50e changed this to use
> > the sb_bgl_lock, so that we could also synchronize against
> > read_inode_bitmap and initialization of uninit inode tables.
> >
> > However, that change left ext4_free_inode using atomic bitops,
> > which I think leaves no synchronization between setting &
> > unsetting bits in the inode table.
> >
> > The below patch fixes it for me, although I wonder if we're
> > getting at all heavy-handed with this spinlock...
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Added to the ext4 patch queue. I will push this to Linus after I do a
bit of testing.
- 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