From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762575AbXFGO3S (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:29:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759042AbXFGO3G (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:29:06 -0400 Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:38442 "EHLO duck.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752213AbXFGO3F (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:29:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:41:21 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Andrew Morton , Eric Sandeen , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] UDF: fix deadlock on inode being dropped Message-ID: <20070607144121.GC12549@duck.suse.cz> References: <20070606175351.GA8397@cvg> <20070607093606.GA12549@duck.suse.cz> <20070607135458.GA8393@cvg> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070607135458.GA8393@cvg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 07-06-07 17:54:58, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > [Jan Kara - Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 11:36:07AM +0200] > | Hi Cyrill! > | > | On Wed 06-06-07 21:53:51, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > | > This patch prevents from deadlock on inode being dropped. > | > The deadlock is caused by inderect call of mark_inode_dirty() > | > within udf_drop_inode() but inode lock is already kept > | > by the kernel. So moving code from udf_drop_inode() to > | > udf_delete_inode() we save its functionality and avoid > | > deadlock. > | The patch is wrong. You cannot truncate the extent just in delete_inode. > | That would lead to inodes with untruncated last extent on disk after > | unmounting, which is forbidden in the specification. You need to truncate > | the last extent whenever inode is being removed from memory or something > | like that... I'm already thinking how to do it and avoid calling > | mark_inode_dirty()... > | > > Arh, thanks... Jan, actually the reason I've moved the code into > 'delete' section was that I found no reasonable difference for our > case between 'drop' and 'delete'. Moreover, by seeing into VFS code > the only diff between 'drop' and 'delete' is that > inside generic_delete_inode() a few inode structure elements > are being destroyed and then our udf_drop_inode is called. So assuming, > that you're right in drop_inode I've code just moved to 'delete' section. The difference is that udf_delete_inode() is called only when inode has i_nlink == 0 and thus it's being deleted on disk. udf_drop_inode() is called whenever inode is removed from memory which is what we want. I'm already testing a patch which should fix the problem... Honza -- Jan Kara SuSE CR Labs