linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tytso@mit.edu
To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ext4: fix reserved space transferring on chown() [V2]
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:42:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091209014259.GV27692@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ocmalgh0.fsf@openvz.org>

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:41:15PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> Absolutely right. I've fixed an issue, but overlooked the BIGGEST one.
> So off course my patch is wrong, even if we will acquire lock in
> different order " dqptr_sem > i_block_reservation_lock"
> we sill getting in to sleeping  spin lock problems by following scenario:
> ext4_da_update_reserve_space()
> ->dquot_claim_space()
> ASSUMES that we hold i_block_reservation_lock here.
> -->mark_dquot_dirty()
> --->ext4_write_dquot()
>     if (journalled quota) ext4_write_dquot();
> ---->dquot_commit()
> ----->mutex_lock(&dqopt->dqio_mutt's); <<< sleep here.
> 
> This means that we have fully redesign quota reservation locking. 
> As i already suggested previously here:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/16576/focus=16587 

Given this, should I include this patch for now, given that it does
fix _one_ race, or should I hold off until you redo the locking?  How
long do you think to send a revised/new patch?

     	    	     	    		- Ted

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-09  1:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-11-25  6:57 [PATCH 1/4] ext4: ext4_get_reserved_space() must return bytes instead of blocks Dmitry Monakhov
2009-11-25  6:57 ` [PATCH 2/4] ext4: fix reserved space transferring on chown() [V2] Dmitry Monakhov
2009-11-25  6:57   ` [PATCH 3/4] ext4: quota macros cleanup Dmitry Monakhov
2009-11-25  6:57     ` [PATCH 4/4] ext4: fix incorrect block reservation on quota transfer Dmitry Monakhov
2009-12-08  1:02       ` Mingming
2009-12-08  6:48         ` Dmitry Monakhov
2009-12-08  0:59     ` [PATCH 3/4] ext4: quota macros cleanup Mingming
2009-12-07 17:18   ` [PATCH 2/4] ext4: fix reserved space transferring on chown() [V2] Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-12-07 19:41     ` Dmitry Monakhov
2009-12-09  1:42       ` tytso [this message]
2009-12-09  2:03         ` Dmitry Monakhov
2009-12-08 23:06   ` Mingming
2009-11-25 16:32 ` [PATCH 1/4] ext4: ext4_get_reserved_space() must return bytes instead of blocks Eric Sandeen
2009-12-08  1:04 ` Mingming

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=20091209014259.GV27692@thunk.org \
    --to=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=dmonakhov@openvz.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).