On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:01:30PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > This WARN_ON is triggering on the truncate path...
> Yeap, this is false positive one. We skip i_mutex on ext4_evict_inode
> This is strange xfsstress 269'th should caught that for me.
> I'll try to prepare workaround ASAP.
This is the patch which I'm currently testing. If it passes I'll fold
it into your patch. Anyone see any problems with it?
- Ted
diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
index f18e786..cd171dd 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
@@ -238,8 +238,10 @@ void ext4_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
* protection against it
*/
sb_start_intwrite(inode->i_sb);
+ mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, ext4_blocks_for_truncate(inode)+3);
if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
+ mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
ext4_std_error(inode->i_sb, PTR_ERR(handle));
/*
* If we're going to skip the normal cleanup, we still need to
@@ -256,12 +258,14 @@ void ext4_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
inode->i_size = 0;
err = ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
if (err) {
+ mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
ext4_warning(inode->i_sb,
"couldn't mark inode dirty (err %d)", err);
goto stop_handle;
}
if (inode->i_blocks)
ext4_truncate(inode);
+ mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
/*
* ext4_ext_truncate() doesn't reserve any slop when it
--
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
