Kadlecsik Jozsef wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Wendy Cheng wrote:
Kadlecsik Jozsef wrote:
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.
It *is* called twice unless my eyes deceive me
static inline void iput_final(struct inode *inode)
{
const struct super_operations *op = inode->i_sb->s_op;
void (*drop)(struct inode *) = generic_drop_inode;
if (op && op->drop_inode)
drop = op->drop_inode; /* gfs call generic_drop_inode() */
drop(inode); /* second call into generic_drop_inode() again. */
}
No, the line 'drop = op->drop_inode;' is just an assignment (there's no
ok, I see ... my eyes do deceive me :) - actually it is my brain that
was not working ...
Then don't remove it yet. The ramification needs more thoughts ...
-- Wendy
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
