[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091209014259.GV27692@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:42:59 -0500
From: tytso@....edu
To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ext4: fix reserved space transferring on chown()
[V2]
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:41:15PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> Absolutely right. I've fixed an issue, but overlooked the BIGGEST one.
> So off course my patch is wrong, even if we will acquire lock in
> different order " dqptr_sem > i_block_reservation_lock"
> we sill getting in to sleeping spin lock problems by following scenario:
> ext4_da_update_reserve_space()
> ->dquot_claim_space()
> ASSUMES that we hold i_block_reservation_lock here.
> -->mark_dquot_dirty()
> --->ext4_write_dquot()
> if (journalled quota) ext4_write_dquot();
> ---->dquot_commit()
> ----->mutex_lock(&dqopt->dqio_mutt's); <<< sleep here.
>
> This means that we have fully redesign quota reservation locking.
> As i already suggested previously here:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/16576/focus=16587
Given this, should I include this patch for now, given that it does
fix _one_ race, or should I hold off until you redo the locking? How
long do you think to send a revised/new patch?
- 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