Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:42:25 +0200 | | From | Herbert Poetzl <> | | Subject | Re: Linux 2.4 quota (accounting?) bug ... |
| |
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 06:31:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Hi, > > > a friend of mine, made me aware of the following > > imbalance, which looks like a minor accounting bug > > to me, but might be a quota bug ... > Sorry but the code seems correct to me - we get reference to dquot by > get_dquot_ref() and than we put the reference by dqput(). dqput() is > correct because something nasty might happen in the mean time and so we > might be the last holders of the dquot. What do you think is wrong?
dqput() does dqstats.drops++; which isn't correct if this should be the same as put_dquot_ref(), but maybe I'm just irritated by strange statistics on some kernels showing more drops than lookups+allocated after sync/quotaoff
best, Herbert
> Honza > > > > > fs/dquot.c : 394 vfs_quota_sync() > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > /* Get reference to quota so it won't be invalidated. get_dquot_ref() > > * is enough since if dquot is locked/modified it can't be > > * on the free list */ > > > > > get_dquot_ref(dquot); > > if (dquot->dq_flags & DQ_LOCKED) > > wait_on_dquot(dquot); > > if (dquot_dirty(dquot)) > > sb->dq_op->sync_dquot(dquot); > > > dqput(dquot); > > goto restart; > > } > > > > > > best, > > Herbert > > > > > -- > Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > SuSE CR Labs > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |