[Cluster-devel] [PATCH] RHEL fix for bz428751

[Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>]

Hi,

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 17:05 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 11:05:41AM +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> > This doesn't look like it solves the problem... don't we need to move
> > the ->go_inval call into gfs2_glock_drop_th() ? After all we know at that
> > point that we'll be dropping the lock, so there is no reason not to
> > invalidate there.
> 
> 
> Moving the invalidation into the gfs2_glock_drop_th() causes problems.
> If the page is already locked when gfs2_glock_drop_th() is called, you
> deadlock trying to lock the pages when you invalidate the lock.
> 
> Looking through the code, it seems like the only time this should happen
> is during a gfs2_readpage() call, like this.
> 
>  #0 [f1d6ec2c] schedule at c06072d9
>  #1 [f1d6ec94] io_schedule at c0607974
>  #2 [f1d6eca0] sync_page at c0455074
>  #3 [f1d6eca4] __wait_on_bit_lock at c0607a89
>  #4 [f1d6ecb8] __lock_page at c0454fbf
>  #5 [f1d6ece4] truncate_inode_pages_range at c045be78
>  #6 [f1d6ed50] truncate_inode_pages at c045bed6
>  #7 [f1d6ed5c] inode_go_inval at f8e4fba2
>  #8 [f1d6ed64] gfs2_glock_drop_th at f8e4ed97
>  #9 [f1d6ed80] run_queue at f8e4ef40
> #10 [f1d6ed9c] gfs2_glock_nq at f8e4f432
> #11 [f1d6edb8] gfs2_glock_nq_atime at f8e5060b
> #12 [f1d6edfc] gfs2_readpage at f8e56c95
> 
> From the best I can tell, it looks like it would be O.K. to unlock the page
> before calling glops->go_inval() in this case, assuming that you knew
> that you were the process that is holding the lock to the page and which page
> was actually locked, and you had a way to tell gfs2_readpage not to
> bother unlocking the page once you were finished.
> 
> Unfortunately, coming up with a good way to pass that information back
> and forth isn't straightforward. As soon as I come up with a decent
> answer, I'll post the modified fix.
> 
> -Ben
> 

Nothing ought to be holding the page lock while we are unlocking the
glock, otherwise problems will occur whichever version of the code you
use. Are you missing the fix for #432057 perhaps?

Steve.