[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd_TUmZ4TM_v3bYyD7gyAnZ9hAoZ5sMmV3kGJe0BLqu84Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 15:46:02 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To: Jason Hrycay <jhrycay@...il.com>
Cc: jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, C.Fries@...orola.com,
jason.hrycay@...orola.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: move f2fs_balance_fs from truncate to punch_hole
2013/4/9, Jason Hrycay <jhrycay@...il.com>:
> From: Jason Hrycay <jason.hrycay@...orola.com>
>
> Move the f2fs_balance_fs out of the truncate_hole function and only
> perform that in punch_hole use case. The commit:
>
> ed60b1644e7f7e5dd67d21caf7e4425dff05dad0
>
> intended to do this but moved it into truncate_hole to cover more
> cases. However, a deadlock scenario is possible when deleting an inode
> entry under specific conditions:
>
> f2fs_delete_entry()
> mutex_lock_op(sbi, DENTRY_OPS);
> truncate_hole()
> f2fs_balance_fs()
> mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
> f2fs_gc()
> write_checkpoint()
> block_operations()
> mutex_lock_op(sbi, DENTRY_OPS);
>
> Lets move it into the punch_hole case to cover the original intent of
> avoiding it during fallocate's expand_inode_data case.
>
> Change-Id: I29f8ea1056b0b88b70ba8652d901b6e8431bb27e
> Signed-off-by: Jason Hrycay <jason.hrycay@...orola.com>
Hi,
With the latest commit 9995bf953a83749abd9fa22f72ab2b0be341025a
About introducing the global locking method in ‘f2fs’,
I think we no longer will have a case of deadlock happening in this path.
Thanks.
--
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