From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] xfs: recheck buffer pinned status after push trylock failure
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:24:48 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130210232448.GD8257@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1360335067-59999-2-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com>
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:51:06AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> The buffer pinned check and trylock sequence in xfs_buf_item_push()
> can race with an active transaction on marking the buffer pinned.
> This can result in the buffer becoming pinned and stale after the
> initial check and the trylock failure, but before the check in
> xfs_buf_trylock() that issues a log force. If the log force is
> issued from this context, a spinlock recursion occurs on xa_lock.
>
> Prepare xfs_buf_item_push() to handle the race by detecting a
> pinned buffer after the trylock failure so xfsaild issues a log
> force from a safe context. This, along with various previous fixes,
> renders the log force in xfs_buf_trylock() redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> index 9c4c050..4e3a059 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c
> @@ -469,8 +469,15 @@ xfs_buf_item_push(
>
> if (xfs_buf_ispinned(bp))
> return XFS_ITEM_PINNED;
> - if (!xfs_buf_trylock(bp))
> + if (!xfs_buf_trylock(bp)) {
> + /*
> + * Check whether we've raced with the buffer being pinned so
> + * xfsaild will pend up a log force.
"pend up": never heard that one before. ;P
Perhaps "queue up" would be better?
As it is, the comment describes what the code is doing, not why we
are doing this check. i.e. "if we just raced with a buffer being
pinned and the buffer has been marked stale, we could end up
stalling until someone else issues a log force to unpin the stale
buffer. Hence, do an optimistic check for the race condition to get
this buffer moving along quickly if we hit it..."
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-10 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-08 14:51 [PATCH v3 0/2] fix spinlock recursion on xa_lock in xfs_buf_item_push Brian Foster
2013-02-08 14:51 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] xfs: recheck buffer pinned status after push trylock failure Brian Foster
2013-02-10 23:24 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-02-08 14:51 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] xfs: remove log force from xfs_buf_trylock() Brian Foster
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=20130210232448.GD8257@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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