Re: [PATCH] xfs: i_state of inode is changed after the inode is freed

[Masayuki Saito <m-saito@tnes.nec.co.jp>]

Hi Nathan, David,

I had the vacation too.

David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> wrote:
>Hmmm - Idon't think we should iput() before we wake up any pinned waiters.
>When we have a waiter on i_ipin_wait (called from xfs_iflush()), we have
>a thread sleeping with the inode locked.
>
>If we then call iput() and it drops the last reference, we can call back
>into the filesystem and start transactions. Those transactions will need
>to lock the inode. Hence I think the above can deadlock when racing against
>an inode flush. 
>
>The code should probably read:
>
>	if (dropped last pincount) {
>		int need_iput = 0;
>		struct inode *inode;
>
>		spin_lock(i_flags_lock)
>		if (!reclaimable) {
>			if (!vp) {
>				if (!(i_state & (NEW|CLEAR))) {
>					inode = igrab(inode)
>					if (inode) {
>						need_iput = 1	
>						mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode)
>					}
>				}
>			}
>		}
>		spin_unlock(i_flags_lock)
>		wake_up(&ip->i_ipin_wait)
>		if (need_iput)
>			iput(inode);
>	}
>
>to avoid this possible deadlock.

OK, I see your point.  There is wait_event(in xfs_iunpin_wait) that should
be wake_up'ed(in xfs_iunpin), so deadlock can occur.

I'll update my patch and test it.  Please wait for a few moments.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/