[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184164086.12154.15.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:28:06 -0500
From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: cmm@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, nfsv4@...ux-nfs.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [EXT4 set 4][PATCH 1/5] i_version:64 bit inode version
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 15:05 +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> It just occurred to me:
>
> If i_version is 64bit, then knfsd would need to be careful when
> reading it on a 32bit host. What are the locking rules?
How does knfsd use i_version? I would think that if all it was doing
was to compare (i_version == previous_version), then locking wouldn't
really matter. Well, theoretically, previous_version could be
0x100000000, and i_version could be 0x1ffffffff, knfsd checks the high
word, then ext4 updates i_version to 0x200000000, then knfsd checks the
low word, detecting no change. How likely is this? (I don't understand
why i_version even needs to be 64 bits in the first place.)
> Presumably it is only updated under i_mutex protection, but having to
> get i_mutex to read it would seem a little heavy handed.
How does knfsd protect itself from the inode changing after i_version is
checked? Is any locking being done otherwise?
> Should it use a seqlock like i_size?
> Could we use the same seqlock that i_size uses, or would we need a
> separate one?
>
> NeilBrown
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
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