[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100701174301.396919016@clark.site>
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:44:26 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc: stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Subject: [176/200] NFS: Fix another nfs_wb_page() deadlock
2.6.34-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
commit 0522f6adedd2736cbca3c0e16ca51df668993eee upstream.
J.R. Okajima reports that the call to sync_inode() in nfs_wb_page() can
deadlock with other writeback flush calls. It boils down to the fact
that we cannot ever call writeback_single_inode() while holding a page
lock (even if we do set nr_to_write to zero) since another process may
already be waiting in the call to do_writepages(), and so will deny us
the I_SYNC lock.
Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
---
fs/nfs/write.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/fs/nfs/write.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
@@ -1518,14 +1518,17 @@ int nfs_wb_page(struct inode *inode, str
};
int ret;
- while(PagePrivate(page)) {
+ for (;;) {
wait_on_page_writeback(page);
if (clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)) {
ret = nfs_writepage_locked(page, &wbc);
if (ret < 0)
goto out_error;
+ continue;
}
- ret = sync_inode(inode, &wbc);
+ if (!PagePrivate(page))
+ break;
+ ret = nfs_commit_inode(inode, FLUSH_SYNC);
if (ret < 0)
goto out_error;
}
--
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