On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Wendy Cheng wrote: > > > Kadlecsik Jozsef wrote: > > > > > > > - commit 82d176ba485f2ef049fd303b9e41868667cebbdb > > > > gfs_drop_inode as .drop_inode replacing .put_inode. > > > > .put_inode was called without holding a lock, but .drop_inode > > > > is called under inode_lock held. Might it be a problem > > > > > Based on code reading ... > 1. iput() gets inode_lock (a spin lock) > 2. iput() calls iput_final() > 3. iput_final() calls filesystem drop_inode(), followed by > generic_drop_inode() > 4. generic_drop_inode() unlock inode_lock after doing all sorts of fun things > with the inode > > So look to me that generic_drop_inode() statement within > gfs_drop_inode() should be removed. Otherwise you would get double > unlock and double list free. I think those function calls are right: iput_final calls either the filesystem drop_inode function (in this case gfs_drop_inode) or generic_drop_inode. There's no double call of generic_drop_inode. However gfs_sync_page_i (and in turn filemap_fdatawrite and filemap_fdatawait) is now called under inode_lock held and that was not so in previous versions. But I'm just speculating. > In short, *remove* line #73 from gfs-kernel/src/gfs/ops_super.c in your > source and let us know how it goes. I won't get a chance to start a test before Monday, sorry. Best regards, Jozsef -- E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP key: http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt Address: KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
