Re: [PATCH] cifs: Avoid calling unlock_page() twice in cifs_readpage() when using fscache

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:58:51 +0100
Sachin Prabhu <sprabhu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> When reading a single page with cifs_readpage(), we make a call to
> fscache_read_or_alloc_page() which once done, asynchronously calls
> the completion function cifs_readpage_from_fscache_complete(). This
> completion function unlocks the page once it has been populated from
> cache. The module then attempts to unlock the page a second time in
> cifs_readpage() which leads to warning messages.
> 
> In case of a successful call to fscache_read_or_alloc_page() we should skip
> the second unlock_page() since this will be called by the
> cifs_readpage_from_fscache_complete() once the page has been populated by
> fscache.
> 
> With the modifications to cifs_readpage_worker(), we will need to re-grab the
> page lock in cifs_write_begin().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sachin Prabhu <sprabhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/cifs/file.c | 10 +++++++---
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
> index 69e8431..98e5222 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> @@ -3423,6 +3423,7 @@ static int cifs_readpage_worker(struct file *file, struct page *page,
>  io_error:
>  	kunmap(page);
>  	page_cache_release(page);
> +	unlock_page(page);
>  
>  read_complete:
>  	return rc;
> @@ -3447,8 +3448,6 @@ static int cifs_readpage(struct file *file, struct page *page)
>  
>  	rc = cifs_readpage_worker(file, page, &offset);
>  
> -	unlock_page(page);
> -
>  	free_xid(xid);
>  	return rc;
>  }
> @@ -3502,6 +3501,7 @@ static int cifs_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
>  			loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned flags,
>  			struct page **pagep, void **fsdata)
>  {
> +	int oncethru = 0;
>  	pgoff_t index = pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
>  	loff_t offset = pos & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1);
>  	loff_t page_start = pos & PAGE_MASK;
> @@ -3511,6 +3511,7 @@ static int cifs_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
>  
>  	cifs_dbg(FYI, "write_begin from %lld len %d\n", (long long)pos, len);
>  
> +start:
>  	page = grab_cache_page_write_begin(mapping, index, flags);
>  	if (!page) {
>  		rc = -ENOMEM;
> @@ -3552,13 +3553,16 @@ static int cifs_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	if ((file->f_flags & O_ACCMODE) != O_WRONLY) {
> +	if ((file->f_flags & O_ACCMODE) != O_WRONLY && !oncethru) {
>  		/*
>  		 * might as well read a page, it is fast enough. If we get
>  		 * an error, we don't need to return it. cifs_write_end will
>  		 * do a sync write instead since PG_uptodate isn't set.
>  		 */
>  		cifs_readpage_worker(file, page, &page_start);
> +		page_cache_release(page);
> +		oncethru = 1;
> +		goto start;
>  	} else {
>  		/* we could try using another file handle if there is one -
>  		   but how would we lock it to prevent close of that handle

Looks correct. Nice catch!

Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux