[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140429232013.GM18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:20:13 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dcache shrink list corruption?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 04:04:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But at a minimum, we have "d_op->d_prune()" that would now be possibly
> be called for the old dentry *after* a new dentry has been allocated.
> Not to mention the inode not having been dropped. So it looks like a
> disaster where the filesystem now ends up having concurrent "live"
> dentries for the same entry. Even if one of them is on its way out,
> it's still visible to the filesystem. That makes me very
> uncomfortable.
>
> I'm starting to think that Miklos' original patch (perhaps with the
> spinlock split to at least be one per superblock) is the most
> straightforward approach after all. It's annoying having to add locks
> here, but the whole pruning path should not be a hotpath, so maybe
> it's not actually a big deal.
FWIW, my solution is more or less working; I'll give more local beating
and post it...
--
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