From: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
To: Erez Zadok <ezk@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] unionfs: 32-bit needs lock for i_size
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:13:25 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712182212430.28390@blonde.wat.veritas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712182207400.28390@blonde.wat.veritas.com>
LTP's iogen01 doio tests hang nicely on 32-bit SMP when /tmp is a unionfs
mount of a tmpfs. See the comment on i_size_write in linux/fs.h: it needs
to be locked, otherwise i_size_read can spin forever waiting for a lost
seqcount update.
Most filesystems are already holding i_mutex for this, but unionfs calls
fsstack_copy_inode_size from many places, not necessarily holding i_mutex.
Use the low-level i_lock within fsstack_copy_inode_size when 32-bit SMP.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
---
This works for me, to help get through LTP, but is not enough: what about
those places which use i_size_write in common code called by unionfs?
They ought to participate in this i_locking too. Needs an audit to
enumerate such places and decide what course to take.
Bigger question: is unionfs calling down to filesystems without holding
their i_mutex, where some may be relying on their i_mutex to be held?
fs/stack.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
--- 2.6.24-rc5-mm1/fs/stack.c 2007-12-05 10:38:38.000000000 +0000
+++ unionfs2/fs/stack.c 2007-12-05 16:50:15.000000000 +0000
@@ -21,8 +21,14 @@
*/
void fsstack_copy_inode_size(struct inode *dst, const struct inode *src)
{
+#if BITS_PER_LONG == 32 && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
+ spin_lock(&dst->i_lock);
+#endif
i_size_write(dst, i_size_read((struct inode *)src));
dst->i_blocks = src->i_blocks;
+#if BITS_PER_LONG == 32 && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
+ spin_unlock(&dst->i_lock);
+#endif
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fsstack_copy_inode_size);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-18 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-18 22:10 [PATCH 0/4] unionfs: work better with tmpfs Hugh Dickins
2007-12-18 22:12 ` [PATCH 1/4] unionfs: remove cap_writeback_dirty test Hugh Dickins
2007-12-18 22:13 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2007-12-18 22:14 ` [PATCH 3/4] unionfs: restructure unionfs_setattr Hugh Dickins
2007-12-18 23:09 ` Erez Zadok
2007-12-19 0:53 ` Hugh Dickins
2007-12-19 1:14 ` Erez Zadok
2007-12-18 22:14 ` [PATCH 4/4] unionfs: fix truncation order Hugh Dickins
2007-12-28 21:09 ` [PATCH 0/4] unionfs: work better with tmpfs Erez Zadok
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0712182212430.28390@blonde.wat.veritas.com \
--to=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ezk@cs.sunysb.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®