[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090305111226.GB29531@duck.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 12:12:26 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Jorge Boncompte [DTI2]" <jorge@...2.net>,
Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@...ia.com>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fs: new inode i_state corruption fix
On Thu 05-03-09 11:16:37, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:00:01AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 05-03-09 07:45:54, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > after ~1hour of running. Previously, the new warnings would start immediately
> > > and hang would happen in under 5 minutes.
> > A quick grep seems to indicate that you've still missed a few cases,
> > haven't you? I still see the same problem in
> > drop_caches.c:drop_pagecache_sb() scanning, inode.c:invalidate_inodes()
> > scanning, and dquot.c:add_dquot_ref() scanning.
> > Otherwise the patch looks fine.
>
> I thought they should be OK; drop_pagecache_sb doesn't play with flags,
> invalidate_inodes won't if refcount is elevated, and I think add_dquot_ref
> won't if writecount is not elevated...
Ah, ok, you are probably right.
> But maybe that's abit fragile and it would be better policy to always
> skip I_NEW in these traverals?
Yes, it seems too fragile to me. I'm not saying we have to forbid
everything for I_NEW inodes but I think we should set clear simple rules
what is protected by I_NEW and then verify that all sites which can come
across such inodes obey them.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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