On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 01:22:08PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > if (use_xfs_buf_lock) {
> > - if (flags & LIBXFS_GETBUF_TRYLOCK) {
> > - int ret;
> > + int ret;
> >
> > - ret = pthread_mutex_trylock(&bp->b_lock);
> > - if (ret) {
> > - ASSERT(ret == EAGAIN);
> > - cache_node_put(libxfs_bcache, (struct cache_node *)bp);
> > - return NULL;
> > + ret = pthread_mutex_trylock(&bp->b_lock);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + ASSERT(ret == EAGAIN);
> > + if (flags & LIBXFS_GETBUF_TRYLOCK)
> > + goto out_put;
> > +
> > + if (pthread_equal(bp->b_holder, pthread_self())) {
> > + fprintf(stderr,
> > + _("recursive buffer locking detected\n"));
>
> "Warning: recursive buffer locking @ bno %lld detected"
>
> might be more informative, especially to do with the severity of the
> issue.
Ok, I'll make it print the block number.
>
> > + bp->b_recur++;
> > + } else {
> > + pthread_mutex_lock(&bp->b_lock);
> > }
> > - } else {
> > - pthread_mutex_lock(&bp->b_lock);
> > }
> > +
> > + bp->b_holder = pthread_self();
>
> That should probably only be written in the branch where the lock is
> taken not every time through here.
We actually should return the buffer just after incrementing the
recursion count, else we might add it to the global list of buffers
twice.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
