tytso@xxxxxxx writes: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 10:41:15PM +0300, Dmitry Monakhov wrote: >> Absolutely right. I've fixed an issue, but overlooked the BIGGEST one. >> So off course my patch is wrong, even if we will acquire lock in >> different order " dqptr_sem > i_block_reservation_lock" >> we sill getting in to sleeping spin lock problems by following scenario: >> ext4_da_update_reserve_space() >> ->dquot_claim_space() >> ASSUMES that we hold i_block_reservation_lock here. >> -->mark_dquot_dirty() >> --->ext4_write_dquot() >> if (journalled quota) ext4_write_dquot(); >> ---->dquot_commit() >> ----->mutex_lock(&dqopt->dqio_mutt's); <<< sleep here. >> >> This means that we have fully redesign quota reservation locking. >> As i already suggested previously here: >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/16576/focus=16587 > > Given this, should I include this patch for now, given that it does > fix _one_ race, or should I hold off until you redo the locking? How > long do you think to send a revised/new patch? Please wait until good version will be approved all involved people. I've already prepared and tested RFC version which solves all known issues. I'll send patch set in a minute. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
