xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: fix deadlock in xfs_rtfree_extent with kernel v2.6.

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: fix deadlock in xfs_rtfree_extent with kernel v2.6.37
From: Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:22:05 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: <20120219224118.GA31535@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <33345988.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <33346009.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <33346035.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <33346043.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <33346051.post@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120219224118.GA31535@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> I think you're better off fixing this problem like I did for the
> allocation side, that is:
> 
>  - remove the xfs_ilock and xfs_trans_ijoin (or probably still
>    xfs_trans_iget in your version) from xfs_rtfree_extent, and
>    instead add asserts that the inode is locked and has an inode_item
>    attach to it.
>  - in xfs_bunmapi if we are dealing with an inode with the rt flag
>    bump the reference count on the inode there and attach it to the
>    transaction before calling into xfs_bmap_del_extent, similar to
>    what we do in xfs_bmap_rtalloc.
> 

I will make the change and test and send the new version of the patch.
BTW when you say reference counting the inode do you mean I should call 
xfs_trans_ijoin_ref().


-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/-PATCH-0-4--RFC-xfs%3A-resurrect-realtime-subvolume-support-on-kernel-2.6.37-tp33345988p33365485.html
Sent from the Xfs - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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