xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] incorrect error handling inside generic_file_direct_write

To: Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] incorrect error handling inside generic_file_direct_write
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:52:32 -0800
Cc: Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, <devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <87bqm9tie3.fsf@xxxxx>
References: <87k60y1rq4.fsf@xxxxx> <20061211124052.144e69a0.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <87bqm9tie3.fsf@xxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:20:52 +0300
Dmitriy Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxx> wrote:

> > XFS (at least) can call generic_file_direct_write() with i_mutex not held. 
> > And vmtruncate() expects i_mutex to be held.
> >
> > I guess a suitable solution would be to push this problem back up to the
> > callers: let them decide whether to run vmtruncate() and if so, to ensure
> > that i_mutex is held.
> >
> > The existence of generic_file_aio_write_nolock() makes that rather messy
> > though.
> This means we may call generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without i_mutex, right?
> but call trace is :
>   generic_file_aio_write_nolock() 
>   ->generic_file_buffered_write() /* i_mutex not held here */ 
> but according to filemaps locking rules: mm/filemap.c:77
>  ..
>  *  ->i_mutex                 (generic_file_buffered_write)
>  *    ->mmap_sem              (fault_in_pages_readable->do_page_fault)
>  ..
> I'm confused a litle bit, where is the truth? 

xfs_write() calls generic_file_direct_write() without taking i_mutex for
O_DIRECT writes.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>