Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:40:43 -0500 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: prevent concurrent unmap_mapping_range() on the same inode |
| |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz> > > Running a fuse filesystem with multiple open()'s in parallel can > trigger a "kernel BUG at mm/truncate.c:475" > > The reason is, unmap_mapping_range() is not prepared for more than > one concurrent invocation per inode. For example: > > thread1: going through a big range, stops in the middle of a vma and > stores the restart address in vm_truncate_count. > > thread2: comes in with a small (e.g. single page) unmap request on > the same vma, somewhere before restart_address, finds that the > vma was already unmapped up to the restart address and happily > returns without doing anything. > > Another scenario would be two big unmap requests, both having to > restart the unmapping and each one setting vm_truncate_count to its > own value. This could go on forever without any of them being able to > finish. > > Truncate and hole punching already serialize with i_mutex. Other > callers of unmap_mapping_range() do not, and it's difficult to get > i_mutex protection for all callers. In particular ->d_revalidate(), > which calls invalidate_inode_pages2_range() in fuse, may be called > with or without i_mutex.
Which I think is mostly a fuse problem. I really hate bloating the generic inode (into which the address_space is embedded) with another mutex for deficits in rather special case filesystems.
| |