From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: dio take shared inode lock when overwriting preallocated blocks
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 13:52:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y5obcGLDZuw/NWOh@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221214170125.bixz46ybm76rtbzf@quack3>
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 06:01:25PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> Besides some naming nits (see below) I think this should work. But I have
> to say I'm a bit uneasy about this because we will now be changing block
> mapping from unwritten to written only with shared i_rwsem. OTOH that
> happens during writeback as well so we should be fine and the gain is very
> nice.
Hmm.... when I was looking potential impacts of the change what
ext4_overwrite_io() would do, I looked at the current user of that
function in ext4_dio_write_checks().
/*
* Determine whether the IO operation will overwrite allocated
* and initialized blocks.
* We need exclusive i_rwsem for changing security info
* in file_modified().
*/
if (*ilock_shared && (!IS_NOSEC(inode) || *extend ||
!ext4_overwrite_io(inode, offset, count))) {
if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) {
ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
inode_unlock_shared(inode);
*ilock_shared = false;
inode_lock(inode);
goto restart;
}
ret = file_modified(file);
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
What is confusing me is the comment, "We need exclusive i_rwsem for
changing security info in file_modified().". But then we end up
calling file_modified() unconditionally, regardless of whether we've
transitioned from a shared lock to an exclusive lock.
So file_modified() can get called either with or without the inode
locked r/w. I realize that this patch doesn't change this
inconsistency, but it appears either the comment is wrong, or the code
is wrong.
What am I missing?
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-14 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-03 10:39 [RFC PATCH] ext4: dio take shared inode lock when overwriting preallocated blocks Zhang Yi
2022-12-14 13:44 ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-14 17:01 ` Jan Kara
2022-12-14 18:52 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2022-12-15 8:41 ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-15 8:49 ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-15 8:48 ` Jan Kara
2022-12-15 8:24 ` Zhang Yi
2022-12-15 9:00 ` Jan Kara
2022-12-15 9:21 ` Zhang Yi
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=Y5obcGLDZuw/NWOh@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/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