Linux NFS development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Wendy Cheng <wcheng@redhat.com>
Cc: NFS list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix NLM reference count panic
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 01:05:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080105060509.GA29020@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <477F0F8B.9020706@redhat.com>

On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 12:03:07AM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 05:48:49PM -0500, Wendy Cheng wrote:
>> This just replaces the file->f_locks check by a search of the inode's
>> lock list.
>>
>> What confuses me here is that the nlm_inspect_file() call just above
>> already did that search, and set file->f_locks accordingly.  The only
>> difference is that now we've acquired the nlm_file_mutex.  I don't
>> understand yet how that makes a difference.
>>
>>  
> You're right. I got the patch sequence wrong. It will cause panic only when 
> we selectively unlock nlm locks under my "unlock" patch as the following. 
> See how it returns without doing nlm_traverse_locks() below ... Let's 
> combine this patch into the big unlock patch so we won't have any 
> confusion. The unlock patch will submitted on Monday after this weekend's 
> sanity check test run. In short, I withdraw this patch... Wendy

OK.  I'll admit to still being a little confused--but with luck it'll
all make sense when I see the whole thing.  Have a good weekend!

--b.

> nlm_inspect_file(struct nlm_host *host, struct nlm_file *file, 
> nlm_host_match_fn_t match)
> {
> + /* Cluster failover has timing constraints. There is a slight
> + * performance hit if nlm_fo_unlock_match() is implemented as
> + * a match fn (since it will be invoked for each block, share,
> + * and lock later when the lists are traversed). Instead, we
> + * add path-matching logic into the following unlikely clause.
> + * If matches, the dummy nlmsvc_fo_match will always return
> + * true.
> + */
> + dprintk("nlm_inspect_files: file=%p\n", file);
> + if (unlikely(match == nlmsvc_fo_match)) {
> + if (!nlmsvc_fo_unlock_match((void *)host, file))
> + return 0;
> + fo_printk("nlm_fo find lock file entry (0x%p)\n", file);
> + }
> +
> nlmsvc_traverse_blocks(host, file, match);
> nlmsvc_traverse_shares(host, file, match);
> return nlm_traverse_locks(host, file, match);
> @@ -369,3 +451,35 @@ nlmsvc_invalidate_all(void)
> */
> nlm_traverse_files(NULL, nlmsvc_is_client);
> }
>

  reply	other threads:[~2008-01-05  6:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-04 22:48 [PATCH] Fix NLM reference count panic Wendy Cheng
2008-01-04 22:58 ` Wendy Cheng
2008-01-04 23:24 ` J. Bruce Fields
2008-01-05  5:03   ` Wendy Cheng
2008-01-05  6:05     ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2008-01-05 17:46       ` Wendy Cheng
2008-01-05 17:36         ` J. Bruce Fields

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=20080105060509.GA29020@fieldses.org \
    --to=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wcheng@redhat.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