[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060822164847m-saito@mail.aom.tnes.nec.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:48:47 +0900
From: Masayuki Saito <m-saito@...s.nec.co.jp>
To: David Chinner <dgc@....com>
Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@....com>, xfs@....sgi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: i_state of inode is changed after the inode is freed
Hi Nathan, David,
I had the vacation too.
David Chinner <dgc@....com> wrote:
>Hmmm - Idon't think we should iput() before we wake up any pinned waiters.
>When we have a waiter on i_ipin_wait (called from xfs_iflush()), we have
>a thread sleeping with the inode locked.
>
>If we then call iput() and it drops the last reference, we can call back
>into the filesystem and start transactions. Those transactions will need
>to lock the inode. Hence I think the above can deadlock when racing against
>an inode flush.
>
>The code should probably read:
>
> if (dropped last pincount) {
> int need_iput = 0;
> struct inode *inode;
>
> spin_lock(i_flags_lock)
> if (!reclaimable) {
> if (!vp) {
> if (!(i_state & (NEW|CLEAR))) {
> inode = igrab(inode)
> if (inode) {
> need_iput = 1
> mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode)
> }
> }
> }
> }
> spin_unlock(i_flags_lock)
> wake_up(&ip->i_ipin_wait)
> if (need_iput)
> iput(inode);
> }
>
>to avoid this possible deadlock.
OK, I see your point. There is wait_event(in xfs_iunpin_wait) that should
be wake_up'ed(in xfs_iunpin), so deadlock can occur.
I'll update my patch and test it. Please wait for a few moments.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists