Re: [PATCH 01/12] vfs: pull ext4's double-i_mutex-locking into common code

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

 



On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 01:38:53PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 10:40:59PM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:09:21PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Sure. I'd prefer ordering by inode number, because then ordering is
> > > deterministic rather than being dependent on memory allocation
> > > results.  It makes forensic analysis of deadlocks and corruptions
> > > easier because you can look at on-disk structures and accurately
> > > predict locking behaviour and therefore determine the order of
> > > operations that should occur. With lock ordering determined by
> > > memory addresses, you can't easily predict the lock ordering two
> > > particular inodes might take from one operation to another.
> > 
> > Hm, OK, not having done this I don't have a good feeling for how
> > important that is, but I can take your word for it.
> > 
> > But the ext4 code actually originally used i_ino order and was changed
> > by 03bd8b9b896c8e "ext4: move_extent code cleanup", possibly on Linus's
> > suggestion?:
> > 
> > 	http://mid.gmane.org/<CA+55aFwdh_QWG-R2FQ71kDXiNYZ04qPANBsY_PssVUwEBH4uSw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > 	"And the only sane order is comparing inode pointers, not inode
> > 	numbers like ext4 apparently does."
> 
> Interesting. What has worked for the last 20 years must be wrong if
> Linus says so ;)
> 
> > 
> > (Uh, I thought I also remembered some rationale but can't dig up the
> > email now.)
> 
> Probably duplicate inode numbers on inodes in different filesystems.
> But rename doesn't allow that, and I don't we ever want to allow
> arbitrary nested inode locking across superblocks. Hence I can't
> think of a reason why it's a problem...

I have some vague memory the argument was rather that inode numbers
could fail to be unique within a fs due to bugs, but I may be making
that up.  I've got no strong opinion here.

> FWIW - gfs2 does multiple glock locking similar to XFS inode locking
> - it sorts the locks in lock number order and the locks them all one
> at a time...
... 
> A quick grep shows lock_2_inodes() in fs/ubifs/dir.c. I don't see
> any other obvious ones.

OK.  I'll put off reposting till I've had a chance to look at those
cases more carefully....  Thanks for the review!

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux