[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120917203946.GV13973@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:39:47 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vfs: dcache: fix deadlock in tree traversal
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 10:23:30PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
>
> IBM reported a deadlock in select_parent(). This was found to be caused by
> taking rename_lock when already locked when restarting the tree traversal.
>
> There are two cases when the traversal needs to be restarted:
>
> 1) concurrent d_move(); this can only happen when not already locked,
> since taking rename_lock protects against concurrent d_move().
>
> 2) racing with final d_put() on child just at the moment of ascending
> to parent; rename_lock doesn't protect against this rare race, so it
> can happen when already locked.
>
> Because of case 2. we need to be able to handle restarting the traversal
> when rename_lock is already held. This patch fixes all three callers of
> try_to_ascend().
>
> IBM reported that the deadlock is gone with this patch. However, there's still
> a soft lockup which is addressed by the next patch.
Egads... The problem is real and analysis, AFAICS, is correct, but result
is extremely ugly ;-/ Let me try to come up with something saner; I'll
push that one to Linus if nothing better comes to mind, but I'd really
prefer to avoid adding to ugliness in fs/dcache.c - we already have too
much of that...
--
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