From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>,
Yehuda Saheh <yehuda@newdream.net>,
Jim Garlick <garlick@llnl.gov>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] autofs4 - update autofs4 to deal with VFS locking change
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:41:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC068A7.405@themaw.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909240835390.25940@cobra.newdream.net>
Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Ian Kent wrote:
>
>> A change to the VFS path walk locking is needed to resolve an issue
>> identified by Sage Weil. This locking change requires significant
>> changes to the autofs4 module to allow it to callback to userspace
>> without introducing a deadlock.
>>
>> To cope with the change the autofs4 module needs to redirect mount
>> requests from ->d_revalidate() to ->lookup() if the directory
>> inode mutex is held when a callback needs to be done. Note that we
>> cannot redirect these requests when the mutex is not held because,
>> to function correctly, the mutex must be held over both revalidate
>> and lookup.
>>
>> Of the patches in the series most are cleanups and refactoring done
>> to keep the real change in "autofs4 - always use lookup for lookup"
>> as clean as possible. Unfortuneately, there is still quite a bit
>> left in it.
>>
>> Also, I need confirmation that the patch that changes the VFS path
>> walk locking is in fact correct, or at least like for like to what
>> will be submitted. I had some difficulty with the original patches
>> that were paosted. The patch in question below is "vfs: make
>> real_lookup do dentry revalidation with i_mutex held".
>
> It looks identical to be the original two folded into one patch. I'll
> repost those two now, freshened against Linus' tree. The first has just
> the functional change, and the cleanup is in the second (as per
> Christoph's review).
>
>> I've done quite a bit of fairly heavy stress testing of the patch
>> series and they (finally) hold up to it. Although I have also
>> managed to uncover a locking bug in the user space daemon as a
>> result, ;)
>
> I'm glad some other good has come of it. Thanks, Ian, for carrying this
> through!
Not quite so good as I haven't fixed it yet.
But that's user space and it happens occasionally under an extended
heavy load so it will take a while to work out.
Ian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-28 7:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-24 8:21 [RFC PATCH 00/11] autofs4 - update autofs4 to deal with VFS locking change Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] Subject: [PATCH] vfs: make real_lookup do dentry revalidation with i_mutex held Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] autofs4 - use macros for active list handling Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] autofs4 - use macros for expiring list Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] autofs4 - use macro for need mount check Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] autofs4 - use autofs_info for pending flag Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] autofs4 - renamer unhashed to active in autofs4_lookup() Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] autofs4 - cleanup active and expire lookup Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] autofs4 - eliminate d_unhashed in path walk checks Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] autofs4 - rename dentry to active in autofs4_lookup_active() Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] autofs4 - rename dentry to expiring in autofs4_lookup_expiring() Ian Kent
2009-09-24 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] autofs4 - always use lookup for lookup Ian Kent
2009-09-24 9:19 ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] autofs4 - update autofs4 to deal with VFS locking change Ian Kent
2009-09-24 16:10 ` Sage Weil
2009-09-28 7:41 ` Ian Kent [this message]
2009-09-28 7:53 ` Ian Kent
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=4AC068A7.405@themaw.net \
--to=raven@themaw.net \
--cc=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=garlick@llnl.gov \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sage@newdream.net \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yehuda@newdream.net \
/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).