lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] skip I_CLEAR state inodes
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:48:57 -0500
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:

> Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 02-06-09 16:55:23, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 05:38:35AM +0800, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>> Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >>>> Add I_CLEAR tests to drop_pagecache_sb(), generic_sync_sb_inodes() and
> >>>> add_dquot_ref().
> >>>>
> >>>> clear_inode() will switch inode state from I_FREEING to I_CLEAR,
> >>>> and do so _outside_ of inode_lock. So any I_FREEING testing is
> >>>> incomplete without the testing of I_CLEAR.
> >>>>
> >>>> Masayoshi MIZUMA first discovered the bug in drop_pagecache_sb() and
> >>>> Jan Kara reminds fixing the other two cases. Thanks!
> >>> Is there a reason it's not done for __sync_single_inode as well?
> >> It missed the glance because it don't have an obvious '|' in the line ;)
> >>
> >>> Jeff Layton asked the question and I'm following it up :)
> >>>
> >>> __sync_single_inode currently only tests I_FREEING, but I think we are
> >>> safe because __sync_single_inode sets I_SYNC, and clear_inode waits for
> >>> I_SYNC to be cleared before it changes I_STATE.
> >> But I_SYNC is removed just before the I_FREEING test, so we still have
> >> a small race window?
>
> yep that's right.
>
> inode->i_state &= ~I_SYNC;
> >>> clear_inode->inode_sync_wait here and find it clear <<<
> if (!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING)) {
>
> ...
>
> >> --- linux.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c
> >> +++ linux/fs/fs-writeback.c
> >> @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> >> spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> >> WARN_ON(inode->i_state & I_NEW);
> >> inode->i_state &= ~I_SYNC;
> >> - if (!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING)) {
> >> + if (!(inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR))) {
> >> if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) &&
> >> mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY)) {
>
> > Is the whole if needed? I had an impression that everyone calling
> > __sync_single_inode() should better take care it does not race with inode
> > freeing... So WARN_ON would be more appropriate IMHO.
>
> Maybe both then (both a WARN on and then the test (defensive here, I
> guess)) because if we continue we may wander into a poisoned list
> pointer and explode, right?
>

Right.

I think removing this check would be roughly equivalent to adding a
BUG_ON. It just wouldn't reliably pop since it would depend on the
timing of the race.

Keeping the check and adding a WARN seems like a reasonable thing to
do. Maybe after a few releases if no one has seen the WARN fire we can
look at removing the check (or maybe turn it into a BUG)?

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-03 12:49    [W:0.607 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site