lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: add missing mutex lock arround notify_change
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 02:03:40AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> OK, I'm definitely missing something. The very first thing
> xfs_file_aio_write_checks() does is
> xfs_rw_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> which really makes me wonder how the hell does that manage to avoid an
> instant deadlock in case of call via xfs_file_buffered_aio_write()
> where we have:
> struct address_space *mapping = file->f_mapping;
> struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> *iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
> xfs_rw_ilock(ip, *iolock);
> ret = xfs_file_aio_write_checks(file, &pos, &count, new_size, iolock);
> which leads to
> struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> (IOW, inode and ip are the same as in the caller) followed by
> xfs_rw_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> and with both xfs_rw_ilock() calls turning into
> mutex_lock(&VFS_I(ip)->i_mutex);
> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> we ought to deadlock on that i_mutex. What am I missing and how do we manage
> to survive that?

Arrrgh... OK, I see... What I missed is that XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL is not
XFS_ILOCK_EXCL. Nice naming, that...


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-19 03:09    [W:0.394 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site