[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/8] xfs: Move ilock before transaction start in xfs_setattr_

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] xfs: Move ilock before transaction start in xfs_setattr_size()
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:59:45 +1100
Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Surbhi Palande <csurbhi@xxxxxxxxx>, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1327091686-23177-5-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx>
References: <1327091686-23177-1-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx> <1327091686-23177-5-git-send-email-jack@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 09:34:42PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> In xfs we first take ilock and start transaction afterwards.

The correct order is to allocate the transaction, reserve the space
for it and then take the ilock.  We cannot hold the ilock over the
transaction reservation because that can deadlock the journal.

That is, to make space for the new transaction reservation, we may
need to take the ilock to flush the inode and allow the journal tail
to move forwards to make space for the new transaction.  If we
already hold the ilock, then it can't be flushed, we can't make
space available in the journal and hence deadlock.

Maybe you confused the ilock vs the iolock.  We can hold the iolock
over the trans alloc/reserve because that lock is not required to
move the tail of the journal, so the deadlock doesn't exist.

> We should obey
> this order in all places because otherwise we can create the following 
> deadlock
> with filesystem freezing: One process holds ilock and blocks on s_frozen ==
> SB_FREEZE_TRANS in xfs_trans_alloc(), another process has a transaction 
> started
> (thus blocking freezing) and blocks on ilock. So we have to take ilock earlier
> in xfs_setattr_size().

Where are we taking the ilock and then calling xfs_trans_alloc()?
That's the caller needs to be fixed, not the 40-odd that do the
right thing by taking the ilock -after- the trans alloc/reserve



Dave Chinner

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