From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754234Ab0CVODl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:03:41 -0400
Received: from mail-bw0-f209.google.com ([209.85.218.209]:41271 "EHLO
	mail-bw0-f209.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750997Ab0CVODk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:03:40 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to
         :user-agent;
        b=dwvZyv3hGAbR8wUoD3YS8NUBlfY53wWbVPueju97YTQBNJpThdIEHTc/cZ52xvmgBZ
         iFZ4ieRqUoE9/JGoidz7ZJpiSfVe5SZjgQTSayrnbtTtJU3KSpH1c/8eipMEAVyoz8Jj
         GxLyuIA0kyW6hHUaC7wMREvBLRRn1zhPukjIs=
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:03:30 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Cc: chris.mason@oracle.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: locking problems: Btrfs: be more selective in the defrag ioctl
Message-ID: <20100322140330.GR21571@bicker>
Mail-Followup-To: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
	Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>, chris.mason@oracle.com,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20100320113851.GB5331@bicker> <20100322134720.GA2383@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100322134720.GA2383@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:47:21AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> > 
> > There is a locking problem in 
> > 	940100a4a7b78 "Btrfs: be more selective in the defrag ioctl"
> > 
> > There are two places where we break out of the while loop under the 
> > lock.
> > 
> > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c +708 btrfs_defrag_file(159) error: double lock 'mutex:&inode->i_mutex'
> >    600                  mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> >    601                  if (range->flags & BTRFS_DEFRAG_RANGE_COMPRESS)
> >    602                          BTRFS_I(inode)->force_compress = 1;
> >    603  
> >    604                  ret = btrfs_check_data_free_space(root, inode, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> >    605                  if (ret) {
> >    606                          ret = -ENOSPC;
> >    607                          break;
> > 
> > 	Here.
> > 
> >    608                  }
> >    609  
> >    610                  ret = btrfs_reserve_metadata_for_delalloc(root, inode, 1);
> >    611                  if (ret) {
> >    612                          btrfs_free_reserved_data_space(root, inode,
> >    613                                                         PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> >    614                          ret = -ENOSPC;
> >    615                          break;
> > 
> > 	And here.
> > 
> >    616                  }
> > 
> > Maybe we should have "goto err_reservations;" instead of break?  I
> > don't know the code well enough to say.
> 
> No, everything is accounted for correctly.  If the metadata reservation fails,
> we free the data space reservation and break.  If the data space reservation
> fails, we're good to go and can just exit.  Thanks,
> 

What about the lock on line 606?

> >    600                  mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);

If we break on line 615 or 607 that means that we return with the lock 
held, or if (range->flags & BTRFS_DEFRAG_RANGE_COMPRESS) is true then we
dead lock.

regards,
dan carpenter

> Josef