lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [19]   [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 02:06:37AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 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...

Been that way for 15 years. :/

However, the naming makes sense to me - the IO lock is for
serialising IO operations on the inode, while the I lock is for
serialising metadata operations on the inode. I guess I'm used to
it, though, so I'll conceed that it might look strange/confusing to
someone who only occassionally looks at the internal XFS locking
code....
Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-19 06:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans