Re: [PATCH resend] introduce I_SYNC

[Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 16:25 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> --- linux-2.6.21logfs/fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c~I_LOCK        2007-05-07
> 10:28:55.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.21logfs/fs/jfs/jfs_txnmgr.c       2007-05-29
> 13:10:32.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1286,7 +1286,14 @@ int txCommit(tid_t tid,          /*
> transaction 
>                  * commit the transaction synchronously, so the last
> iput
>                  * will be done by the calling thread (or later)
>                  */
> -               if (tblk->u.ip->i_state & I_LOCK)
> +               /*
> +                * I believe this code is no longer needed.  Splitting
> I_LOCK
> +                * into two bits, I_LOCK and I_SYNC should prevent
> this
> +                * deadlock as well.  But since I don't have a JFS
> testload
> +                * to verify this, only a trivial s/I_LOCK/I_SYNC/ was
> done.
> +                * Joern
> +                */
> +               if (tblk->u.ip->i_state & I_SYNC)
>                         tblk->xflag &= ~COMMIT_LAZY;
>         }

I think the code is still needed, and I think this change is correct.
The deadlock that this code is avoiding is caused by clear_inode()
calling wait_on_inode().  Since clear_inode() now calls
inode_sync_wait(inode), we want to avoid the lazily committing this
transaction when the I_SYNC flag is set.

Unfortunately, recreating the deadlock is hard, and I haven't been able
to recreate it with this code commented out.

Thanks,
Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
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/