[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130327023816.GC2697@thunk.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 22:38:16 -0400
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ext4: refactor punch hole code
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 01:54:19PM +0100, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> > + /* Wait all existing dio workers, newcomers will block on i_mutex */
> > + ext4_inode_block_unlocked_dio(inode);
>
> This was not present in the indirect punch hole code, does it means
> that there was a bug ? If so maybe it's worth mentioning in the
> description?
Yes, I'm pretty sure it was a bug. The
ext4_inode_block_unlocked_dio() call was added in the extents code
path by commit 02d262dffcf4c. The problem is that i_mutex will not
block DIO readers in dioread_nolock mode. One of the problems with
not having done the code refactorization earlier was that a bug fixed
in one code path doesn't necessarily get fixed in another.
I'll add a comment to this effect in the commit description.
> > + if (ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_EXTENTS))
> > + credits = ext4_writepage_trans_blocks(inode);
> > + else
> > + credits = ext4_blocks_for_truncate(inode);
> > + handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, EXT4_HT_TRUNCATE,
> > + ext4_blocks_for_truncate(inode));
>
> Hmm, shouldn't we be using 'credits' instead of
> ext4_blocks_for_truncate(inode) here ?
Yes, good catch!
Thanks,
- 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