On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 05:12:58PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> /*
> - * For the unlocked version of this call, also make sure that any
> - * hanging journal_head is cleaned up if necessary.
> + * For the unlocked version of this call, also drop buffer_head reference.
> *
> * __jbd2_journal_refile_buffer is usually called as part of a single locked
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't this paragraph refer to jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(), not
__jbd2_journal_refile_buffer()? Or am I missing something?
> void jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(journal_t *journal, struct journal_head *jh)
> {
> struct buffer_head *bh = jh2bh(jh);
>
> + /* Get reference so that buffer cannot be freed before we unlock it */
> + get_bh(bh);
OK, so we're adding a get_bh(bh) call to jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(),
which we're not freeing later in the function. So this means every
single place where we call jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(), we'd better
add put_bh(bh) or bhrelse(bh) call, right?
So in fs/jbd2/commit.c, line 418, in jbd2_journal_commit_transaction(),
I see a call to jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(), which the patch doesn't
seem to adjust. Looks like this could cause a buffer leak?
In your testing, have you checked to the slab cache to make sure there
isn't any memory leakage going on with buffer heads?
- Ted
--
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
