Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Jun 2004 00:47:39 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: inode_unused list corruption in 2.4.26 - spin_lock problem? | From | Chris Caputo <> |
| |
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Chris Caputo wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > På su , 20/06/2004 klokka 20:45, skreiv Marcelo Tosatti: > > > Lets see if I get this right, while we drop the lock in iput to call > > > write_inode_now() an iget happens, possibly from write_inode_now itself > > > (sync_one->__iget) causing the inode->i_list to be added to to inode_in_use. > > > But then the call returns, locks inode_lock, decreases inodes_stat.nr_unused-- > > > and deletes the inode from the inode_in_use and adds to inode_unused. > > > > > > AFAICS its an inode with i_count==1 in the unused list, which does not > > > mean "list corruption", right? Am I missing something here? > > > > Yes. Please don't forget that the inode is still hashed and is not yet > > marked as FREEING: find_inode() can grab it on behalf of some other > > process as soon as we drop that spinlock inside iput(). Then we have the > > calls to clear_inode() + destroy_inode() just a few lines further down. > > ;-) > > > > If the above scenario ever does occur, it will cause random Oopses for > > third party processes. Since we do not see this too often, my guess is > > that the write_inode_now() path must be very rarely (or never?) called. > > > > > If you are indeed right all 2.4.x versions contain this bug. > > > > ...and all 2.6.x versions... > > > > I'm not saying this is the same problem that Chris is seeing, but I am > > failing to see how iput() is safe as it stands right now. Please > > enlighten me if I'm missing something. > > I think this is a different (albeit apparently valid) problem. In my case > MS_ACTIVE (in iput() below) will be set since I am not unmounting a volume > and so I believe iput() will return immediately after adding the inode to > the unused list. > > That said, I have added your patch to my test setup in case it helps.
I was able to duplicate the problem I am seeing even with Trond's patch applied. So the patch potentially solves a different problem but not the one I am seeing.
Chris
- 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/
| |