[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090602062729.03bdbe99@tupile.poochiereds.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 06:27:29 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Masayoshi MIZUMA <m.mizuma@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skip I_CLEAR state inodes
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 16:55:23 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 05:38:35AM +0800, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > Add I_CLEAR tests to drop_pagecache_sb(), generic_sync_sb_inodes() and
> > > add_dquot_ref().
> > >
> > > clear_inode() will switch inode state from I_FREEING to I_CLEAR,
> > > and do so _outside_ of inode_lock. So any I_FREEING testing is
> > > incomplete without the testing of I_CLEAR.
> > >
> > > Masayoshi MIZUMA first discovered the bug in drop_pagecache_sb() and
> > > Jan Kara reminds fixing the other two cases. Thanks!
> >
> > Is there a reason it's not done for __sync_single_inode as well?
>
> It missed the glance because it don't have an obvious '|' in the line ;)
>
> > Jeff Layton asked the question and I'm following it up :)
> >
> > __sync_single_inode currently only tests I_FREEING, but I think we are
> > safe because __sync_single_inode sets I_SYNC, and clear_inode waits for
> > I_SYNC to be cleared before it changes I_STATE.
>
> But I_SYNC is removed just before the I_FREEING test, so we still have
> a small race window?
>
Yes, I think so. __sync_single_inode clears I_SYNC but doesn't wake up
the wait queue until the end of the function. So I think it's possible
(though unlikely) that another thread can race in and change the state
to I_CLEAR before the I_FREEING check.
> > On the other hand, testing I_CLEAR here probably would be safe anyway,
> > and it'd be bonus points for consistency?
>
> So let's add the I_CLEAR test?
>
> > Same basic question for generic_sync_sb_inodes, which has a
> > BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_FREEING), seems like this could check I_CLWAR
> > as well?
>
> Yes, we can add I_CLEAR here to catch more error condition.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>
> ---
> skip I_CLEAR state inodes in writeback routines
>
> The I_FREEING test in __sync_single_inode() is racy because
> clear_inode() can set i_state to I_CLEAR between the clear of I_SYNC
> and the test of I_FREEING.
>
> Also extend the coverage of BUG_ON(I_FREEING) to I_CLEAR.
>
> Reported-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> Reported-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ linux/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> WARN_ON(inode->i_state & I_NEW);
> inode->i_state &= ~I_SYNC;
> - if (!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING)) {
> + if (!(inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR))) {
> if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) &&
> mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY)) {
> /*
> @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ void generic_sync_sb_inodes(struct super
> if (current_is_pdflush() && !writeback_acquire(bdi))
> break;
>
> - BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_FREEING);
> + BUG_ON(inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR));
> __iget(inode);
> pages_skipped = wbc->pages_skipped;
> __writeback_single_inode(inode, wbc);
Acked-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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