From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([147.243.1.47] helo=mgw-sa01.nokia.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1QUb6v-0002SU-1k for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:01:15 +0000 Received: from eru.research.nokia.com (esdhcp038109.research.nokia.com [172.21.38.109]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p5990wEB028399 for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:01:03 +0300 From: Artem Bityutskiy To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH 11/30] UBIFS: add few commentaries about TNC Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:04:51 +0300 Message-Id: <1307610310-28691-12-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1307610310-28691-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> References: <1307610310-28691-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Artem Bityutskiy Add a couple of comments - while looking into TNC I could not easily figure out few facts, so it is a good idea to document them in the code. Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy --- fs/ubifs/tnc_commit.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ubifs/tnc_commit.c b/fs/ubifs/tnc_commit.c index f50c3e5..d6fab1a 100644 --- a/fs/ubifs/tnc_commit.c +++ b/fs/ubifs/tnc_commit.c @@ -89,6 +89,10 @@ static int make_idx_node(struct ubifs_info *c, struct ubifs_idx_node *idx, ubifs_assert(ubifs_zn_dirty(znode)); ubifs_assert(ubifs_zn_cow(znode)); + /* + * Note, unlike 'write_index()' we do not add memory barriers here + * because this function is called with @c->tnc_mutex locked. + */ __clear_bit(DIRTY_ZNODE, &znode->flags); __clear_bit(COW_ZNODE, &znode->flags); @@ -903,6 +907,28 @@ static int write_index(struct ubifs_info *c) clear_bit(COW_ZNODE, &znode->flags); smp_mb__after_clear_bit(); + /* + * We have marked the znode as clean but have not updated the + * @c->clean_zn_cnt counter. If this znode becomes dirty again + * before 'free_obsolete_znodes()' is called, then + * @c->clean_zn_cnt will be decremented before it gets + * incremented (resulting in 2 decrements for the same znode). + * This means that @c->clean_zn_cnt may become negative for a + * while. + * + * Q: why we cannot increment @c->clean_zn_cnt? + * A: because we do not have the @c->tnc_mutex locked, and the + * following code would be racy and buggy: + * + * if (!ubifs_zn_obsolete(znode)) { + * atomic_long_inc(&c->clean_zn_cnt); + * atomic_long_inc(&ubifs_clean_zn_cnt); + * } + * + * Thus, we just delay the @c->clean_zn_cnt update until we + * have the mutex locked. + */ + /* Do not access znode from this point on */ /* Update buffer positions */ -- 1.7.2.3